^w^ 


•  ^-1^ 


5:z.&/o3. 


Stom  t^e  feifirarg  of 

(§t<]\xtai^c^  6g  0im  to 
t0e  &i6rarg  of 

(Ibtinceton  S^^eofogtcaf  ^etntndrg 

SV  649  .S75  1842 

1699.         '  ^^^ard,  1635- 
The  irenicuxn 


^\  'i'y^. 


THE 


lEENICUM,    OE   PACinCATOE 


RECONCILER 


CHURCH  DIFFERENCES. 


BISHOP  STILLINGFLEET, 

AOTHOR  OF  THE  0RI6INES  SACRiE. 
FIRST  AMERICAN  EDITION. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

M.  SORIN,  91  NORTH  SECOND  STREET. 

1842. 


T.  K.  &  P.  G.  Collins,  Printera. 


IRENICUM; 

A 

WEAPON    SALVE 

FOR  THE 

CHURCH'S   WOUNDS; 

OR  THE 

DIVINE    RIGHT 

OF 

PARTICULAR  FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT; 

DISCUSSED  AND  EXAMINED  ACCORDING  TO  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  LAW 

OF  NATURE,  THE  POSITIVE  LAWS  OF  GOD,  THE  PRACTICE  OF 

THE  APOSTLES,  AND  THE  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH,  AND 

THE  JUDGMENT  OF  REFORMED  DIVINES. 

WHEREBY  A  FOUNDATION  IS  LAID  FOR  THE  CHORCH's  PEACE,  AND  THE 
ACCOMMODATION  OF  OUR  PRESENT  DIFFERENCES. 

HUMBLY    TENDERED    TO    CONSIDERATION. 

^/     BY 

EDWARD  STILLINGFLEET, 

RECTOR  OF  SUTTON  IN  BEDFORDSBIRB. 

THE  SECOND  EDITION;* 

WITH 

AN  APPENDIX 

CONCERNING  THE 

POWER  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION 

IN  A 

CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 

"  Let  your  moderation  be  known  unto  all  men,  the  Lord  is  at  hand."    Phil.  iv.  5. 
"  Si  ad  decidendas  hodiernas  controversias— jus  divinium  a  positivo  seu  ecclesiastico 

candid^  separaretur;  non  videretur  de  iis  quae  sunt  absolute  necessaria,  inter  pics 

aut  moderatos  viro5  longa  aut  acris  contentio  usura."    Casaub.  ep.  ad  Card.  Perron. 
"  Multum  refert  ad  retinendum  Ecclesiarum  pacem,  inter  ea  quse  jure  divino  prsecepta 

sunt,  et  quae  non  sunt,  accurate  dislinguere."    Grot,  de  Imper.  sum.  Poteatat.  circa 

Sacra,  cap.  11. 

PHILADELPHIA: 
M.  SORIN,  91  NORTH  SECOND  STREET. 

1842. 


♦  This  was  published  at  London,  A.  D.  1662. 


TRANSLATION  OF  THE  LATIN  QUOTATIONS  ON  THE 
TITLE  PAGE. 


"If  in  order  to  decide  the  controversies  of  the  present  times,  that  law  which  is  Divine,  should 
be  impartially  separated  from  that  which  is  dogmatic  and  ecclesiastical,  it  is  evident  that 
contests  relative  to  things  essential,  would  not  be  either  long  or  keen,  amongst  candid 
and  pious  men."    Isaac  Casaub.  ep.  ad  Card.  Perron. 

"  To  preserve  the  peace  of  Churches,  it  is  of  great  consequence  accurately  to  distinguish  be- 
tween those  precepts  which  are  Divine,  and  those  which  are  not."  Grot,  de  Imper.  sum. 
Fotestat.  circa  Sacra,  cap.  11. 


THE 

PREFACE  TO  THE  READER. 


I  WRITE  not  to  increase  the  controversies  of  the  times,  nor 
to  foment  the  differences  that  are  among  us;  the  former  are  by 
far  too  many,  the  other  too  great  already.  My  only  design 
is  to  allay  the  heat,  and  abate  the  fury  of  that  ignis  sacer, 
("holy  fire,")  or  erysipelas  of  contention,  which  hath  risen  in 
the  face  of  our  church,  by  the  overflowing  of  that  bilious 
humour,  which  yet  appears  to  have  too  great  predominancy 
in  the  spirits  of  men.  And  although,  with  the  poor  Persian, 
I  can  only  bring  a  handful  of  water,  yet  that  may  be  my  just 
apology,  that  it  is  for  the  quenching  of  those  flames  in  the 
church,  which  have  caused  the  bells  of  Aaron  to  jingle  so 
much,  that  it  seems  to  be  a  work  of  the  greatest  difficulty  to 
make  them  tuneable.  And  were  this  an  age  wherein  any- 
thing might  be  wondered  at,  it  would  be  matter  of  deserved 
admiration,  to  hear  the  noise  of  those  axes  and  hammers  so 
much  about  the  temple,  and  that  after  these  nigh  twenty  years 
of  carving  and  hewing,  we  are  so  rude  and  unpolished  stilly 
and  so  far  from  being  cemented  together  in  the  unity  of  the 
spirit  and  the  bond  of  peace.  May  we  not  justly  fear  that 
voice,  migremus  hinc,  "let  us  go  hence,"  when  we  see  the 
vail  of  the  temple  so  rent  asunder,  and  the  church  itself  made 
a  partition  wall  to  divide  the  members  of  it?  And  since  the 
wise  and  gracious  God  hath  been  pleased,  in  such  an  almost 
miraculous  manner,  so  lately  to  abate  the  land-flood  of  our 
civil  intestine  divisions,  how  strange  must  it  seem,  if  our 
sacred  contentions,  (if  contentions  may  be  called  sacred,)  like 
the  waters  of  the  sanctuary,  should  rise  from  the  ankle  to  the 
knee,  till  at  last  they  may  grow  impassable.  Must  only  the 
fire  of  our  unchristian  animosities  be  like  that  of  the  temple, 
which  was  never  to  be  extinguished?  However,  I  am  sure, 
it  is  such  a  one  as  was  never  kindled  from  Heaven,  nor  blown 


^ 


VI  PREFACE. 

up  with  any  breathings  of  the  Holy  and  Divine  Spirit;  and 
yet  that  hath  been  the  aggravation  of  our  divisions,  that  those 
whose  duty  it  is  to  Hft  up  their  voices  like  trumpets,  have 
rather  sounded  an  alarm  to  our  contentious  spirits,  than  a 
parley  or  retreat,  which  had  been  far  more  suitable  to  our 
Messengers  of  Peace.  In  which  respect  it  might  be  too  truly 
said  of  our  church,  what  is  spoken  of  the  eagle  in  the  Greek 
apologue: 

BXsTTSi  TO  o-tmSo;  aSTO;  r^aiQiv  TeaKat, 
'AXyojv  ie  XojTTov,  rts-ro  <rtoK\a  JaxjuoBv: 
'RXtittav  Je  oicTOV,  iiitiv  ETrTejajjwevov, 
Bttffai,  TTTEfW  jUe  tov  tttejoitov  IXKvu. 

"The  eagle  saw  her  breast  was  wounded  sore, 
She  stood  and  weeped  much,  but  grieved  more: 
But  when  she  saw  the  dart  was  feather'd,  said. 
Woe's  me,  for  my  own  liind  hath  me  destroy'd."' 

It  is  not  SO  long  since  that  version  of  the  vulgar  Latin, 
Psalm  Ixviii.  13,  iiiter  domini  cleros^  ("as  to  the  ministers  of 
the  Lord,")  might  have  been  sadly  rendered,  "to  lie  among 
the  pots;"  and  Pierius  Valerianus  might  have  met  with  too 
many  examples  to  have  increased  his  book  "c^e  Literatoruni 
Infelicitate,'"  ("on  the  Infelicity  of  Literary  Men;")  and  in  the 
next  age  it  might  have  been  true  again  what  Matthew  Paris 
observes  of  the  clergy  in  the  Conqueror's  time,  "aofeo  litera- 
turd  carebant,  lit  coeteris  siupori  esset  qui  grammaticam 
didicisset,'''  ("they  were  so  destitute  of  learning,  that  he  who 
had  learned  grammar,  was  a  matter  of  astonishment  to  the 
rest.")  But,  blessed  be  God,  who  hath  freed  us  from  that 
^'' dxmonium  meridianiim,'^  that  ''demon's  meridian"  of  ig- 
norance and  barbarism:  may  we  but  be  as  happily  delivered 
from  the  plague  of  our  divisions  and  animosities!  Than 
which  there  hath  been  no  greater  scandal  to  the  Jews,  nor 
opprobrium  of  our  religion  among  Heathens  and  Mahomme- 
dans,  nor  a  more  common  objection  among  Papists,  nor  any- 
thing which  hath  more  made  a  pretence  even  for  Atheism  and 
Infidelity. 

For  our  controversies  about  religion  have  brought  at  last 
even  religion  itself  into  a  controversy,  among  such  whose 

'  "  My  own  l<ind  hath  me  destroy'd!"  How  true;  how  often  too  true!  It 
needs  not  lions,  tigers,  wolves,  or  bears  to  destroy  us;  but  how  often  have  we  to 
say,  "  my  own  kind  hath  me  destroyed!" — Surely  not  in  this  city  of  "  brotherly- 
love?" —  Yes,  even  here  wo  say  with  the  poet,  wtijov  /*s  ^ov  tttejibtov  oXXuei,  "  my 
own  kind  liath  me  destroyed!!"  How  needful,  therefore,  to  adopt  as  a  maxim, 
wliat  was  said  of  one  of  old,  "  He  committed  himself  not  to  man,  because  He 
knew  what  was  in  man." — Am.  Ed. 


PREFACE.  VII 

weaker  judgiiients  have  not  been  able  to  discern  where  the 
plain  and  unquestionable  way  to  heaven  hath  lain,  in  so  great 
a  mist  as  our  disputes  have  raised  amongst  us.  Weaker 
heads,  when  they  once  see  the  battlements  shake,  are  apt  to 
suspect  that  the  foundation  itself  is  not  firm  enough;  and  to 
conclude,  if  anything  be  called  in  question,  that  there  is  no- 
thing certain.  And  truly  it  cannot  but  be  looked  on  as  a  sad 
presage  of  an  approaching  famine,  not  of  bread,  but  of  (he 
word  of  the  Lord,  that  our  lean  kine  have  devoured  the  fat, 
and  our  thin  ears  the  plump  and  full;  I  mean,  our  contro- 
versies and  disputes  have  eaten  so  much  out  the  life  and 
practice  of  Christianity.  Religion  hath  been  so  much  rarefied 
into  airy  notions  and  speculations,  by  the  distempered  heat  of 
men's  spirits,  that  its  inward  strength,  and  the  vitals  of  it, 
have  been  much  abated  and  consumed  by  it. 

Curiosity,  that  green-sickness  of  the  soul,  whereby  it  longs 
for  novelties,  and  loaths  sound  and  wholesome  truth,  hath 
been  the  epidemical  distemper  of  the  age  we  live  in.  Of 
which  it  may  be  truly  said,  as  ever  yet  of  any,  that  it  was 
^^ ssecidum  fertile  religionis,  sterile  pietatis,^^  "an  age  fertile 
in  religion,  but  barren  in  piety,"  I  fear  this  will  be  the  cha- 
racter whereby  our  age  will  be  known  to  posterity;  that  it 
was  the  age  wherein  men  talked  of  religion  most,  but  lived  it 
least.  Few  there  are  who  are  content  with  the  dimensum, 
"  measure,"  which  God  hath  set  them;  every  one  almost  is  of 
the  Spanish  Jesuit's  mind,  ^' beatus  qui  praedicat  verbum  in- 
auditum,^'  "  happy  is  he  who  proclaims  a  doctrine  not  yet 
heard;"  seeking  to  find  out  something  whereby  he  may  be 
reckoned,  if  not  among  the  wise,  yet  among  the  disputers  of 
this  world.  How  small  is  the  number  of  those  sober  Chris- 
tians, of  whom  it  may  be  said,  as  Lucian  of  his  parasites,^ 
mix  7]<3xo%a^ov  voasiv,  they  were  not  at  leisure  to  be  sick  of  this 
pica,  {pie,f  (1  Tim.  vi.  4;)  such  as  longed  more  to  taste  of  the 
tree  of  life  than  of  the  tree  of  knowledge;  and  as  Zenophon 
speaks  of  the  Persians,  tb  vy^ov  txTtovowifi  avf;xvoxoi.,  "  they  la- 
bour to  consume  the"  fomes  morbi,  "  the  root  of  the  distem- 
per by  their  serious  endeavours  after  peace  and  holiness." 
But  instead  of  this,  the  generality  of  men,  let  all  their  religion 
run  up  into  briars  and  thorns,  into  contentions  and  parties,  as 
though  religion  were  indeed  sacramentum  militise,  "  a  mili- 

1  Rather  of  ir^oXairTixof,  the  "simpleton,"  whose  apology  to  his  physician,  was 
oux  i)(r;^oXa^6  voa-siv,  "  he  had  no  leisure  to  get  sick!" — Am.  Ed. 

2  i.  e.  Sucli  men  have  no  leisure  to  get  sick  of  this  pie  of  religious  novelties, 
or  non-essentials;  that  is,  they  have  better  work  to  do. — Am.  Ed. 


VIU  PREFACE. 

tary  oath,  or  an  oath  of  war,"  but  more  against  fellow  Chris- 
tians, than  the  unquestionable  hindrances  of  men's  eternal 
happiness. 

Men  being  very  loath  to  put  themselves  to  the  trouble 
of  a  holy  life,  are  very  ready  to  embrace  anything  which 
may  but  dispense  with  that;  and  if  but  listing  men's 
selves  under  such  a  party,  may  but  shelter  them  under  a 
disguise  of  religion,  none  more  ready  than  such  to  be 
known  by  distinguishing  names,  none  more  zealous  in  the 
defence  of  every  tittle  and  punctilio,  that  lies  most  remote 
from  those  essential  duties,  wherein  the  kingdom  of  God 
consists,  viz.  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost.  And  hence,  all  the  several  parties  among  us  have 
given  such  glorious  names  only  to  the  outward  government 
of  the  church,  the  undoubted  practice  of  the  apostles,  the  disci- 
pline of  Christ,  the  order  of  the  gospel,  and  account  only  that 
the  church  where  their  own  method  of  government  is  ob- 
served; just  as  the  historian  observes  of  Brutus  and  Cassius, 
ubicunque  ipsi  essent  prsetexentes  se  esse  rempublicam, 
"they  were  every  where  pretending  that  they  themselves 
were  the  commonwealth;"  they  think  the  Church  can  never 
be  preserved,  but  in  the  vessel  they  are  embarked  in:  as 
though  Christ  could  not  have  caused  his  flock  to  rest  sub 
meridie,  "  at  noon,"  (Cant.  i.  7,)  unless  the  pars  Donati,  "  the 
party  of  Donatus"^  had  been  in  the  south.  And  from  this 
monopolizing  of  churches  to  parties,  hath  proceeded  that 
strange  uncharitableness  towards  all  who  come  not  up  in 
every  circumstance  to  their  way  and  method;  which  is  a  piece 
of  prudence  like  that  of  Brutus,  who  when  he  had  raised  these 
flames  in  the  commonwealth,  was  continually  calling  Caesar 
tyrant;  ita  enim,  appellari  Csesarem,  facto  ejus  expediebat; 
"  for  so  Caesar  was  called,  it  was  expedient  to  his  case."  So 
when  men  have  caused  such  lamentable  divisions  in  the 
church,  by  their  several  parties  and  factions,  it  concerns  them 
to  condemn  all  others  beside  themselves,  lest  they  most  of  all 
condemn  themselves  for  making  unnecessary  divisions  in  the 
church  of  God.  This  uncharitableness  and  ill  opinion  of  all 
different  parties,  only  gathers  the  fuel  together,  and  prepares 
combustible  matter,  which  wants  nothing  but  the  clashing 
of  an  adverse  party,  acting  on  principles  of  a  like  nature,  to 
make  it  break  out  into  an  open  flame.  And  such  we  have 
seen,  and  with  sadness  and  grief  of  heart  felt  to  be  in  the 

1  Sec  Mosheim's  Church  History,  vol.  1,  p.  402  to  409,  and  vol.  2,  p.  58. 


PKEFACE.  IX 

vitals  of  our  own  church  and  nation,  by  reason  of  those 
violent  calentures'  and  paroxysms  of  the  spirits  of  men,  those 
heart-burnings  and  contentions  which  have  been  among  us, 
that  will  require  both  time  and  skill  to  purge  out  those 
noxious  humours,  which  have  been  the  causes  of  them.  I 
know  no  prescriptions  so  likely  to  effect  this  happy  end,  as  an 
infusion  of  the  true  spirits  of  religion,  and  the  revulsion  of 
that  extravasaled  blood  into  its  proper  channels.  Thereby  to 
take  men  off  from  their  eager  pursuits  after  ways  and  parties, 
notions  and  opinions,  (wherein  many  have  run  so  far,  that 
they  have  left  the  best  part  of  their  religion  behind  them,)  and 
to  bring  them  back  to  a  right  understanding  of  the  nature, 
design  and  principles  of  Christianity. 

Christianity  is  a  religion,'  such  that  it  is  next  to  a  miracle, 
that  men  should  ever  quarrel  or  fall  out  about,  nuich  less  that 
it  should  be  the  occasion,  or  at  least  the  pretence  of  all  that 
strife  and  bitterness  of  spirit,  of  all  those  contentions  and 
animosities,  which  are  at  this  day  in  the  Christian  world.  But 
our  only  comfort  is,  that  whatever  may  be  our  tempers,  our 
God  is  the  God  of  Peace;  our  Saviour  is  the  Prince  of  Peace; 
and  that  wisdom  which  this  religion  teaches,  is  botli  pure  and 
peaceable.  It  was  for  that  which  our  religion,  once  so  amiable 
in  the  judgment  of  impartial  heathens,  that  they  said  nil  nisi 
justum  suadet  et  lene,  "  nothing  except  what  is  just  and  mild 
persuades,"  that  the  court  of  a  Christian's  conscience  was 
thought  to  be  the  best  court  of  equity  in  the  world.  Chris- 
tians were  once  known  by  their  iy^oj/  xat  fistxixov  i^Ooi,  "  the 
benignity  and  sweetness  of  their  disposition,"  by  the  candour 
and  ingenuity  of  their  spirits,  by  their  mutual  love,  forbear- 
ance and  condescension  towards  one  another.  But,  aut  hoc 
no7i  est  evangeliu77i,  aut  nos  non  sunius  evangelici'^  either 
this  is  not  the  practice  of  Christianity,  or  it  was  never  calcu- 
lated for  our  meridian,  wherein  men's  spirits  are  of  too  high 
an  elevation  for  it. 

If  pride  and  uncharitableness,  if  divisions  and  strife,  if 
wrath  and  envy,  if  animosities  and  contentions,  were  but  the 
marks  of  true  Christians,  Diogenes  never  need  light  his  lamp 
at  noon  to  find  out  such  among  us.  But  if  a  spirit  of  meek- 
ness, gentleness,  and  condescension,  if  a  stooping  to  the  weak- 
ness and  infirmities  of  others,  if  a  pursuit  after  peace  even 
when  it  flies  from  us,  be  the  indispensable  duties,  and  the 

♦ 

•  An  ardent  fever,  peculiar  to  hot  climates:  from  caleo,  to  be  hot. 
2  Literally,  "  either  this  is  not  the  gospel,  or  we  are  not  evangelic." 
2 


X  PREFACE. 

characteristic  marks  of  those  who  have  more  than  the  name 
of  Christians,  it  may  possibly  prove  a  difRcult  inquest  to  find 
out  such  among  the  crowds  of  those  who  shelter  themselves 
under  that  glorious  name.  Whence  came  it  else  to  be  so 
lately  looked  on,  as  the  way  to  advance  religion  to  banish 
peace,  and  to  reform  men's  manners  by  taking  away  their 
lives?  Whereas  in  those  pure  and  primitive  times,  when  re- 
ligion did  truly  flourish,  it  was  accounted  the  greatest  instance 
of  the  piety  of  Christians  not  to  fight  but  to  die  for  Christ. 
It  was  never  thought  then  that  Bellona^  was  a  nursing  mother 
to  the  church  of  God,  nor  Mars  a  god  of  reformation.  Re- 
ligion was  then  propagated,  not  by  Christians  shedding  the 
blood  of  others,  but  by  laying  down  their  own.  They  thought 
there  were  other  ways  to  a  Canaan  of  reformation  besides  the 
passing  through  a  wilderness  of  confusion  and  a  red  sea  of 
blood.  Origen  could  say  to  the  Christians  in  his  time,  "For 
we  no  longer  take  up  the  sword  against  the  pagans,  nor  do 
we  yet  learn  to  war,  having  become  the  children  of  peace 
through  Jesus."^  They  had  not  learned  to  make  way  for  re- 
ligion into  men's  minds,  by  the  dint  of  the  sword,  because 
they  were  the  disciples  of  that  Saviour,  who  never  pressed  fol- 
lowers as  men  do  soldiers,  but  said,  "If  any  man  will  come 
after  me,  let  him  take  up  his  cross,  (not  his  sword,)  and  follow 
me,"  *H;ii«^os  xai  ^aavO^ujrtoi  vo(^o9t6i,a,  "  his  Very  commands 
showed  his  meekness  and  philanthropy;"  his  laws  were  sweet 
and  gentle  laws — not  like  Draco's  that  were  written  in  blood, 
unless  it  were  his  own  that  gave  them. 

His  design  was  to  ease  men  of  their  former  ourdens,  and 
not  to  lay  on  more.  The  duties  He  required  were  no  other  but 
such  as  were  necessary,  and  withal  very  just  and  reasonable. 
He  that  came  to  take  away  the  insupportable  yoke  of  Jewish 
ceremonies,  certainly  did  never  intend  to  gall  the  necks  of  his 
disciples  with  another  instead  of  it.  And  it  would  be  strange 
that  the  church  should  require  more  than  Christ  himself  did; 
and  make  other  conditions  of  her  communion  than  our  Saviour 
did  of  discipleship.  What  possible  reason  can  be  assigned  or 
given  why  such  things  should  not  be  sufficient  for  communion 
with  a  church,  which  are  sufficient  for  eternal  salvation? 
And  certainly  those  things  are  sufficient  for  that,  which  are 
laid  down  as  the  necessary  duties  of  Christianity  by  our  Lord 


'  The  goddess  of  war,  or  Mars'  wife. 
rev  Introov  woi  t»{  eijivh?. 


PREFACE.  XI 

and  Saviour  in  his  word.  What  ground  can  there  be  why 
Christians  should  not  upon  the  same  terms  act  now  as  they 
did  in  tlie  time  of  Christ  and  his  apostles?  Was  not  rehgion 
sufficiently  guarded  and  fenced  in  then?  Was  there  ever 
more  true  and  cordial  reverence  in  the  worship  of  God? 
What  charter  hatli  Christ  given  the  church  to  bind  men  up  to 
more  than  himself  hath  done?  or  to  exclude  those  from  her 
society,  who  may  be  admitted  into  heaven?  Will  Christ  ever 
thank  men  at  the  great  day  for  keeping  such  out  from  com- 
munion with  his  church,  to  whom  he  will  vouchsafe  (not  only) 
crowns  of  glory?  (but  it  may  be  aureolae,  golden,  too,  if  there 
be  any  such  things  there?)  The  grand  commission  with  which 
the  apostles  were  sent  out,  was  only  to  teach  what  Christ  had 
commanded  them.  Not  the  least  intimation  of  any  power 
given  them  to  impose  or  require  anything  beyond  what  him- 
self had  spoken  to  them,  or  they  were  directed  to  by  the  im- 
mediate guidance  of  the  spirit  of  God.  It  is  not,  whether  the 
things  commanded  and  required  be  lawful  or  not?  It  is  not, 
whether  indifferencies  may  be  determined  or  not;  it  is  not  how 
far  Christians  are  bound  to  submit  to  a  restraint  of  their  Chris- 
tian liberty  which  I  now  inquire  after;  (of  these  things  in 
the  treatise  itself;)  but,  whether  they  do  consult  for  the  church's 
peace  and  unity  who  suspend  it  upon  such  things?  How  far 
either  the  example  of  our  Saviour  or  his  apostles  doth  warrant 
such  rigorous  imposition?  We  never  read  the  apostles'  making 
laws  but  of  things  supposed  necessary.  When  the  council  of 
apostles  met  at  Jerusalem,  for  deciding  a  case  that  disturbed 
the  church's  peace,  we  see  they  would  lay  no  other  burden 
fi%tjv  tuv  sTiava/yxsi  fov-icov,  "besides  these  necessary  things,"  jicts 
XV.  28.  It  was  not  enough  with  them  that  the  things  should 
be  necessary  when  they  had  required  them,  but  they  looked 
on  an  antecedent  necessity  either  absolute  or  for  the  present 
state,  which  was  the  only  ground  of  their  imposing  those 
commands  upon  the  gentle  Christians.  There  were  after  this 
great  diversities  of  practice  and  varieties  of  observances  among 
Christians,  but  the  Holy  Ghost  never  thought  those  things  fit 
to  be  made  matters  of  laws  to  which  all  parties  should  conform. 
All  that  the  apostles  required  as  to  these,  was  mutual  for- 
bearance and  condescension  towards  each  other  in  them.  The 
apostles  valued  not  indifferencies  at  all,  and  those  things  it  is 
evident  they  accounted  such,  which  whether  men  did  them  or 
not,  was  not  of  concernment  to  salvation.  And  what  reason 
is  there  why  men  should  be  so  strictly  tied  up  to  such  things, 
which  they  may  do  or  let  alone,  and  yet  be  very  good  Chris- 


XU  PREFACE. 

tians  still?  Without  all  controversy,  the  main  inlet  of  all  the 
distractions,  confusions,  and  divisions  of  the  Christian  world, 
hath  been  by  adding  other  conditions  of  church  communion 
than  Christ  hath  done.  Had  the  church  of  Rome  never  taken 
upon  her  to  add  to  the  rule  of  faith,  nor  imposed  idolatrous 
and  superstitious  practices,  all  the  injury  she  had  done  herself 
had  been  to  have  avoided  that  fearful  schism  which  she  hath 
caused  throughout  the  Christian  world.  Would  there  even  be 
the  less  peace  and  unity  in  a  church,  if  a  diversity  were  al- 
lowed as  to  practices  supposed  indifferent?  yea  there  would  be 
so  much  more  as  there  was  a  mutual  forbearance  and  con- 
descension as  to  such  things.  The  unity  of  the  church  is  an 
unity  of  love  and  atiection,  and  not  a  bare  uniformity  of  prac- 
tice or  opinion.  This  latter  is  extremely  desirable  in  a  church: 
but  as  long  as  there  are  several  ranks  and  sizes  of  men  in  it, 
it  is  hardly  attainable,  because  of  the  different  persuasions  of 
men's  minds  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  the  things  required;  and 
it  is  no  commendation  for  a  Christian  to  have  only  the  civility 
of  Procrustes,  to  commensurate  all  other  men  to  the  size  and 
shape  of  his  own  humour  and  opinion.  There  is  nothing  the 
primitive  church  deserves  greater  imitation  by  us  in,  than  in 
that  admirable  temper,  moderation,  and  condescension  which 
was  used  in  it,  towards  all  the  members  of  it.  It  was  never 
thought  worth  the  while  to  make  any  standing  laws  for  rites 
and  customs  that  had  no  other  original  but  tradition,  much 
less  to  suspend  men  from  her  communion  for  not  observing 
them.  As  Sozomen  tells  us,  "  they  judged  it,  and  that  very 
justly,  a  foolish  and  frivolous  thing  for  those  that  agree  in  the 
weighty  matters  of  religion,  to  separate  from  one  another's 
communion  for  the  sake  of  some  petty  customs  and  observ- 
ances."* '•'  For  not  the  same  traditions  are  to  be  found 
in  all  the  churches,  though  as  to  all  doctrines  essential,  they 
are  of  the  same  mind."^  For  churches  agreeing  in  the 
same  faith,  often  difier  in  their  rites  and  customs.  And  that 
not  only  in  different  churches,  but  in  different  places  belong- 
ing to  the  same  church;  for,  as  he  tells  us,  many  cities  and 
villages  in  Egypt,  not  only  differed  from  the  customs  of  the 
mother  church  of  Alexandria,  but  from  all  other  churches 
besides  in  their  public  assemblies  on  the  evenings  of  the 
Sabbath,  and   receiving   the  eucharist  after    dinner.      This 

'  Etni&Ei  yaj  xat  fxaku  hKatcDf  vTTsXaSov  e&»v  evsxev  aXXuXani  ^tBji^ea-S'ai,  tteji  to  xajj ja 
TDs  Spno-xEiae  <rvfyi.<pwyowTSi;. — Hist.  Eccl.  1.  7,  C.  19. 

2  Ov  yap  raq  amaq  Tia^a^oa-iiq  Kara  itaira.  ofAOtai  xav  o/t*oSo^o«  Siev,  ev  naa-aig  raif 
fxxXiis-iaK  Ifftiv  er<v. 


prb:faoe.  xiu 

« 

admirable  temper  in  the  primitive  church  might  be  largely 
cleared  from  that  liberty  they  allowed  freely  to  dissenters 
from  them  in  niatters  of  practice  and  opinion:  as  might  be 
proved  from  Cyprian,  Jlustine,  Jerome  and  others;  but  that 
would  exceed  the  bounds  of  a  preface.  The  first  who  broke 
this  order  in  the  church,  were  the  Arians,  DoUatists  and  Cir- 
cumcellians,  while  the  true  church  was  still  known  by  its 
pristine  moderation  and  sweetness  of  deportment  towards  all 
its  members.  The  same  we  hope  may  remain  as  the  most 
infallible  evidence  of  the  conformity  of  our  church  of  Eng- 
land to  the  primitive,  not  so  much  in  using  the  same  rites 
that  were  in  use  then,  as  in  not  imposing  them,  but  leaving 
men  to  be  won  by  the  observing  the  true  decency  and  order 
of  churches,  whereby  those  who  act  upon  a  true  principle  of 
Christian  ingenuity  may  be  sooner  drawn  to  a  compliance  in 
all  lawful  things,  than  by  force  and  rigorous  impositions, 
which  make  men  suspect  the  weight  of  the  thing  itself  when 
such  force  is  used  to  make  it  enter.  In  the  meantime  what 
cause  have  we  to  rejoice  that  Almighty  God  hath  been  pleased 
to  restore  us  a  prince  of  that  excellent  prudence  and  modera- 
tion, who  hath  so  lately  given  assurance  to  the  world  of  his 
great  indulgence  towards  all  that  have  any  pretence  from 
conscience  to  differ  with  their  brethren!  The  only  thing  then 
seeming  to  retard  our  peace,  is,  the  controversy  about  church 
government,  an  unhappy  controversy  to  us  in  England,  if 
ever  there  was  any  in  the  world.  And  the  more  unhappy, 
in  that  our  contentions  about  it  have  been  so  great,  and  yet 
so  few  of  the  multitudes  engaged  in  it,  have  truly  understood 
the  matter  they  have  so  eagerly  contended  about.  For  the 
state  of  the  controversy,  as  it  concerns  us,  lies  not  here,  as  it 
is  generally  mistaken.  What  form  of  government  comes  the 
nearest  to  apostolical  practice;  but,  Whether  any  one  indi- 
vidual form  be  founded  so  upon  divine  right,  that  all  ages 
and  churches  are  bound  unalterably  to  observe  it?  The 
clearing  up  of  which  by  an  impartial  inquiry  into  all  the 
grounds  produced  for  it,  being  of  so  great  tendency  to  an  ac- 
commodation of  our  present  differences,  was  the  only  motive 
which  induced  me  to  observe  Jlristotle' s  wild  politics,  of  ex- 
posing this  deformed  conception  to  the  entertainment  of  the 
wide  world.  And  certainly  they  who  have  espoused  the 
most  the  interest  of  a  jus  divinum,  cannot  yet  but  say  that 
if  the  opinion  I  maintain  be  true,  it  doth  exceedingly  conduce 
to  a  present  settlement  of  the  differences  that  are  among  us. 


XIV  PREFACE. 

For  then  all  parties  may  retain  their  different  opinions  con- 
cerning the  primitive  form,  and  yet  agree  and  pitch  upon  one 
compounded  of  all  together  as  tlie  most  suitable  to  the  state 
and  condition  of  the  church  of  God  among  us.  That  so  the 
people's  interest  be  secured  by  consent  and  suffrage,  which  is 
the  pretence  of  the  congregational  way,  the  due  power  of 
presbyteries  asserted  by  their  joint  concurrence  with  the 
bishop,  as  is  laid  down  in  that  excellent  model  of  the  late 
incomparable  primate  of  Armagh:  and  the  just  honour  and 
dignity  of  the  bishop  asserted,  as  a  very  laudable  and  ancient 
constitution  for  preserving  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church 
of  God.  So  the  learned  Is.  Casaicbon  describes  the  polity 
of  the  primitive  church:  "Bishops,  together  with  presbyters, 
were  appointed  in  each  of  the  churches,  and  every  one,  by 
his  singular  care,  taking  charge  of  his  own,  and  all  of  the 
whole  in  common  interest,  gave  a  specimen  of  a  certain  kind 
of  admirable  aristocracy."^  My  main  design  throughout 
this  whole  treatise,  is  to  sho.w  that  there  can  be  no  argument 
drawn  from  any  pretence  of  a  divine  right,  that  may  hinder 
men  from  consenting  and  yielding  to  such  a  form  of  govern- 
ment in  the  church  as  may  bear  the  greatest  correspondence 
to  the  primitive  church,  and  be  most  advantageously  conduci- 
ble  to  the  peace,  unity,  and  settlement  of  our  divided  church. 
I  plead  not  at  all  for  any  abuses  or  corruptions  incident  to  the 
best  form  of  government  through  the  corruption  of  men  and 
times'.  Nay  I  dare  not  harbour  so  low  apprehensions  of  per- 
sons enjoying  so  great  dignity  and  honour  in  the  church,  that 
they  will  in  anywise  be  unwilling  of  themselves  to  reduce  the 
form  of  church  government  among  us  to  its  primitive  state 
and  order,  by  retrenching  all  exorbitances  of  power,  and  re- 
storing those  presbyteries  which  no  law  hath  forbidden,  but 
only  through  disuse  have  been  laid  aside.  Whereby  they 
will  give  to  the  world  that  rare  example  of  self-denial  and 
the  highest  Christian  prudence,  as  may  raise  an  honourable 
opinion  of  them  even  among  those  who  have  hitherto  the 
most  slighted  so  ancient  and  venerable  an  order  in  the  church 
of  God,  and  thereby  become  the  repairers  of  those  otherwise 
irreparable  chasms  in  the  church  of  God.     I  conclude  with 

'  Episcopi  in  singulis  ecclesiis  constituti  cum  suis  prcbyleriis,  et  propriam 
sibi  quisque  peculiuri  cura,  et  universam  omnes  in  commune  ciirantes,  admi- 
rabilis  cujusdam  aristocralise  speciem  referebant.  "  By  aristocracy,  in  tliis 
ecclesiastic  sense,  was  meant  simply,  a  government,  by  a  regular  gradation  of 
ranks  filling  up,  each  its  own  place  and  duty  in  the  general  system." 


PREFACE,  XV 

the  words  of  a  late  learned,  pious  and  moderate  prelate  in 
his  Via  media;^  I  have  done,  and  now  I  make  no  other 
account,  but  that  it  will  fall  out  with  me,  as  it  doth  commonly 
with  him  that  offers  to  part  a  quarrel,  both  parts  will  perhaps 
drive  at  me  for  wishing  them  no  worse  than  peace.  My 
ambition  of  the  public  tranquillity  shall  willingly  carry  me 
through  this  hazard:  let  both  beat  me,  so  their  quarrel  may 
cease:  I  shall  rejoice  in  those  blows  and  scars  which  I  shall 
take  for  the  church's  safety. 

1  The  middle  path;  Horace's  aurea  mediocritas,  "  the  golden  mean;"  or  Ovid's, 
in  medio  iutissimus  ibis,  "thou  shalt  pass  most  safely  midway  between  both  ex- 
tremes." 


CONTENTS. 


PART   I. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Things  necessary  for  the  church's  peace,  must  be  clearly  revealed.  The  form 
of  Church  Government  not  so,  as  appears  by  the  remaining  controversy  about 
it.  An  evidence  thence,  that  Christ  never  intended  any  one  Form,  as  the 
only  means  to  peace  in  the  church.  The  nature  of  a  Divine  right  discussed. 
Right  in  general  either  makes  things  lawful,  or  else  due.  For  the  former,  a 
non-prohibition  is  sufficient ;  the  latter,  an  express  command,  Duty  supposeth 
legislation  and  promulgation.  The  question  stated.  Nothing  binds  unal- 
terably but  by  virtue  of  a  standing  law,  and  that  twofold;  The  law  of 
nature  and  positive  laws  of  God.  Three  ways  to  know  when  positive  laws 
are  unalterable.  The  Divine  right  arising  from  Scripture  examples.  Divine 
acts,  and  Divine  approbation,  considered 33 

CHAPTER  n. 

Six  Hypotheses  laid  down,  as  the  basis  of  the  following  Discourse.  1.  The  irre- 
versible obligation  of  the  Law  of  Nature,  either  by  human,  or  Divine  positive 
Laws,  in  things  immediately  flowing  from  it.  2.  Things  agreeable  to  the 
Law  of  Nature  may  be  lawfully  practised  in  the  Church  of  God,  where  there 
is  no  prohibition  by  positive  Laws;  enlarged  into  five  subservient  propositions. 
3.  Divine  positive  Laws,  concerning  the  manner  of  the  thing  whose  substance 
is  determined  by  the  Law  of  Nature,  must  be  obeyed  by  virtue  of  the  obliga- 
tion of  the  natural  Law.  4.  Things  undetermined,  both  by  the  natural  and 
positive  Laws  of  God,  may  be  lawfully  determined  by  the  supreme  authority 
in  the  Church  of  God.  The  Magistrate's  power  in  matters  of  Religion,  largely 
asserted  and  cleared.  The  nature  of  Indifferency  in  actions  stated.  That 
Matters  of  Christian  liberty  are  subject  to  restraints,  largely  proved.  Propo- 
sals for  accommodation  as  to  matters  of  Indifferency.  5.  What  is  thus  deter- 
mined by  lawful  authority,  doth  bind  the  consciences  of  men,  subject  to  that 
authority — to  obedience  to  those  determinations.  6.  Things  thus  determined 
by  lawful  authority,  arc  not  thereby  made  unalterable,  but  may  be  revoked, 

limited,  and  changed  by  the  same  authority 58 

3 


XVllI  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  III. 

How  far  Church  Government  is  founded  upon  the  Law  of  Nature.  Two  things 
in  it  founded  thereon.  1.  That  there  must  be  a  society  of  men  for  the  worship 
of  God.  y.  That  this  society  be  governed  in  tlie  most  convenient  manner.  A 
society  for  worship  manifested,  Gen.  iv.  26,  considered.  The  sons  of  God,  and 
the  sons  of  men,  who?  Societies  for  worship  among-  Heathens  evidenced  by 
three  things,  1.  Solemnity  of  Sacrifices;  Sacrificing,  how  far  natural;  the 
antiquity  of  the  Feast  of  first  fruits,  largely  discovered.  2.  The  original  of 
festivals  for  the  honour  of  their  Deities.  3.  The  secrecy  and  solemnity  of 
their  mysteries.  This  furiher  proved  from  man's  sociable  nature,  the  improve- 
ment of  it  by  Religion,  the  honour  redounding  to  God  by  such  a  society  for 
his  worship 100 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  second  thing  the  law  of  nature  dictates,  that  this  society  be  maintained  and 
governed  in  the  most  convenient  manner.  A  further  inquiry,  what  particular 
orders  for  government  in  the  Church  come  from  the  law  of  nature.  Six  laid 
down,  and  evidenced  to  be  from  thence.  First,  a  distinction  of  some  persons, 
and  their  superiority  over  others,  both  in  power  and  order,  cleared  to  be  from 
the  law  of  nature.  Tiie  power  and  application  of  the  power  distinguished; 
this  latter  not  from  any  law  of  nature  binding,  but  permissive:  therefore  may 
be  restrained.  People's  right  of  choosing  Pastors  considered.  Order  distin- 
guished  from  the  form  and  manner  of  government;  the  former  natural,  the 
other  not.  The  second  is,  that  the  persons  employed  in  the  service  of  God, 
should  have  respect  answerable  to  their  employment,  which  appears  from 
their  relation  to  God  as  his  servants;  from  the  persons  employed  in  this  work 
before  positive  laws.  Masters  of  families  the  first  Priests,  The  priesthood  of 
the  first  born  before  the  Lord  discussed:  the  arguments  for  it  answered.  The 
conjunction  of  civil  and  sacred  authority  largely  shown,  among  Egyptians, 
Grecians,  Romans,  and  others.  The  ground  of  separation  of  them  afterwards, 
from  PZ««arc/t  and  others. 113 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  third  thing  dictated  by  the  Law  of  Nature,  is  the  solemnity  of  all  things  to 
be  performed  in  this  society;  which  lies  in  the  gravity  of  all  rites  and  ceremo- 
nies;  in  the  composed  temper  of  mind,  God's  worship  rational.  His  Spirit 
destroys  not  the  use  of  reason.  The  enthusiastic  spirit  discovered.  The  cir- 
cumstantiating of  fit  time  and  place  for  worship.  The  seventh  day,  on  what 
account  so  much  spoken  of  by  Heathens,  The  Romans'  holy  days.  Cessation 
of  labour  upon  them.  The  solemnity  of  ceremonies  used,  Xe^vi^.,'  WEjif^avTr- 
fitt,2  "Silence  in  devotions."     Exclusion  of  unfit  persons.    Solemnity  of  disci- 

'  Xefvt4»  "  consecrated  water  for  the  washing  of  hands  before  sacrifice." 
2  nsfippavTDfia,  "  vessels  for  sprinkling  water  aroimd  in  lustrations." 


CONTENTS.  XIX 

pline:  excommunication  amonp  the  Jews  by  the  sound  of  a  trumpet;  among 
Christians  by  a  bell.  - 121 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  fourth  thing  dictated  by  the  Law  of  Nature,  that  there  must  be  a  way  to 
end  controversies  arising,  which  tend  to  break  the  peace  of  the  society.  The 
nature  of  schism  considered.  The  Church's  power  as  to  opinions  explained. 
When  separation  from  a  Ciiurch  may  be  lawful.  Not  till  communion  becomes 
sin;  which  is.  when  corruptions  are  required  as  conditions  of  communion. 
Not  lawful  to  erect  new  Churches,  upon  supposition  of  corruption  in  a  Church. 
The  ratio  of  a  fundamental  article  explained;  it  implies  both  necessity  and  suf- 
ficiency in  order  to  salvation.  Liberty  of  judgment  and  authority  distinguished; 
the  latter  must  be  parted  with  in  religious  societies  as  to  private  persons.  What 
way  the  ligiit  of  nature  directs  to,  for  ending  controversies.  First,  in  an  equality 
of  power,  that  the  less  number  yield  to  the  greater:  on  what  Law  of  Nature  that 
is  founded.  Secondly,  in  a  subordination  of  power  that  there  must  be  a  liberty  of 
appeals  defined.  Independency  of  particular  congregations  considered.  Elec- 
tive Synods.  The  case  paralleled  between  civil  and  church  government. 
Where  appeals  finally  lodge.  The  power  of  calling  synods,  and  confirming 
their  acts  in  the  magistrate.       -. 132 

CHAPTER  Vn. 

The  fifth  thing  dictated  by  the  law  of  nature;  that  all  that  are  admitted  into  this 
society,  must  consent  to  be  governed  by  the  laws  and  rules  of  it.  Civil  socie- 
ties founded  upon  mutual  consent;  express  in  the  first  entrance,  implicit  in 
others  born  under  societies  actually  formed.  Consetft  as  to  a  Church  neces- 
sary, the  manner  of  consent  determined  by  Christ  by  Baptism  and  profession. 
Implicit  consent  supposed  in  all  baptized;  explicit,  declared  by  challenging  the 
privileges,  and  observing  the  duties  of  the  Covenant.  Explicit  by  express 
owning  the  Gospel  when  adult,  very  useful  for  recovering  the  credit  of  Chris- 
tianity. The  discipline  of  the  primitive  Church  cleared  from  Origen,  Justin 
Martyr,  Pliny,  Tertullian.  The  necessary  requisites  of  church  membership, 
whether  positive  signs  of  grace:  nothing  required  by  the  Gospel  beyond  real- 
ity of  profession.  Explicit  Covenant,  how  far  necessary;  not  the  formal  con- 
stitution of  a  church:  proved  by  several  arguments 159 

CHAPTER  Vm. 

The  last  thing  dictated  by  the  law  of  nature  is,  that  every  offender  against  the 
laws  of  this  society,  must  give  an  account  of  his  actions  to  the  governors  of  it, 
and  submit  to  the  censures  inflicted  upon  him  by  them.  The  original  of 
penalties  in  societies.  The  nature  of  them,  according  to  the  nature  and  ends 
of  societies.     The  penalty  of  the  church  no  civil  mulct;  because  its  laws  and 


XX  CONTENTS. 


ends  are  different  from  civil  societies.  The  practice  of  the  Druids  and  Cercet<e 
in  excommunication.  Among  the  Jews,  whether  a  mere  civil  or  sacred  penalty. 
Tlie  latter  proved  by  six  arguments.  ^Cherem  Col  Bo,  what?  Objections 
answered.  The  original  of  the  mistake  showed.  The  first  part  concluded.    168 


PART    II, 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  other  ground  of  divine  right  considered,  viz.  God's  positive  laws;  which 
imply  a  certain  knowledge  of  God's  intention  to  bind  men  perpetually.  As  to 
which,  the  arguments  drawn  from  tradition,  and  the  practice  of  the  church  in 
after  ages,  proved  invalid  by  several  arguments.  In  order  to  a  right  stating 
the  question,  some  concessions  laid  down;  First,  that  there  must  be  some  form 
of  government  in  the  church,  is  of  divine  right.  Tiie  notion  of  a  church  ex- 
plained:  whether  it  belongs  only  to  particular  congregations,  which  are  mani- 
fested not  to  be  of  God's  primary  intention,  but  for  our  necessity.  Evidence 
for  national  churches  under  the  gospel.  A  national  church  government  neces- 
sary.   177 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  second  concession  is,  that  church  government  formally  considered,  must  be 
administered  by  officejs  of  divine  appointment.  To  that  end,  the  continuance 
of  a  Gospel  ministry  fully  cleared  from  all  those  arguments,  by  which  posi- 
tive laws  are  proved  immutable.  The  reason  of  the  appointment  of  it  con- 
tinues; the  idea  of  a  seculum  spiritus  sancti,  first  broached  by  the  Mendicant 
Friars  upon  the  rising  of  the  Waldenses  discussed.  God's  declaring  the  per- 
petuity of  a  Gospel  ministry,  Matth.  xxviii.  20,  explained.  A  novel  interpre- 
tation largely  refuted.  The  world  to  come,  what.  A  ministry  necessary  for 
the  church's  continuance,  Ephes.  iv.  12,  explained  and  vindicated.  185 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  question  fully  stated.  Not  what  form  of  government  comes  the  nearest  to 
the  primitive  practice,  but  whether  any  be  absolutely  determined.  Several 
things  propounded  for  resolving  the  question.  What  the  form  of  church 
government  was  under  the  law.  How  far  Christians  are  bound  to  observe 
that.  Neither  the  necessity  of  a  superior  order  of  church  officers,  nor  the  un- 
lawfulness can  be  proved  from  thence. 197 

'  An  anathema,  a  curse,  a  thing  devoted. — Am.  Ed. 


CONTENTS.  XXI 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Wlielher  Christ  hath  determined  the  form  of  government  by  any  positive  laws. 
Arguments  of  the  necessity  why  Christ  must  determine  it,  largely  answered; 
as  First,  Christ's  faithfulness  compared  with  Moses,  answered,  and  retorted, 
and  thence  proved,  that  Clirist  did  not  institute  any  form  of  government  in  the 
church  because  he  gave  no  such  law  for  it  as  Moses  did;  and  we  have  nothing 
but  general  rules,  which  are  applicable  to  several  forms  of  government.  The 
office  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  what  it  proves  in  order  to  this  question:  the  law- 
fulness of  Episcopacy  shown  thence,  but  not  the  necessity.  A  particular  form, 
how  far  necessary,  as  Christ  was  the  governor  of  his  church;  the  similitudes 
the  church  is  set  out  by,  prove  not  the  thing  in  question.  Nor  the  difference 
between  civil  and  church  government;  nor  Christ  setting  officers  in  his  church; 
nor  the  inconvenience  of  the  church's  power  in  appointing  new  officers. 
Every  minister  halh  a  power  respecting  the  church  in  common,  which  the 
church  may  determine,  and  fix  the  bounds  of  Episcopacy  thence  proved  law- 
ful;  the   argument  from  the  Scriptures'  perfection  answered.  -      202 

CHAPTER  V. 

Whether  any  of  Christ's  actions  have  determined  the  form  of  government.  All 
power  in  Christ's  hands  for  governing  the  church.  What  order  Christ  took  in 
order  thereto  when  he  was  in  the  world.  Calling  Apostles  the  first  action  re- 
specting outward  government.  Three  steps  of  the  Apostles'  calling,  to  be  Dis- 
ciples; in  their  first  mission;  in  their  plenary  commission.  Several  things 
observed  upon  them  pertinent  to  our  purpose.  The  name  and  office  of  Apostles 
cleared.  An  equality  among  them  proved  during  our  Saviour's  life.  Feler 
not  made  Monarch  of  the  church  by  Christ.  The  pleas  for  it  answered. 
The  Apostles'  power  over  the  seventy  disciples  considered,  with  the  nature 
and  quality  of  their  office,  Matth.  xx.  25,  26,  27,  largely  discussed  and  ex- 
plained. It  excludes  all  civil  power;  but  makes  not  all  inequality  in  church 
officers  unlawful;  by  tiie  difference  of  Apostles  and  pastors  of  churches,  Matth. 
xviii.  15,  16,  17.  No  evidence  for  any  one  form  from  thence,  because  equally 
applied  to  several.  What  the  offences  are,  there  spoken  of?  What  church 
spoken  to?  Not  an  Ecclesiastical  Sanhedrim  among  the  Jews,  nor  yet  the  civil 
Sanhedrim  as  Erastus  and  his  followers  explain  it:  nor  a  consistorial  or  con- 
gregational church  under  the  gospel;  but  only  a  select  company  for  ending 
private  differences  among  Christians. 225 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  next  and  chief  thing  pleaded  for  determining  the  forms  of  church  govern- 
ment, is  apostolical  practice;  two  things  inquired  into  concerning  that,  What 
it  was?  How  fur  it  binds?  The  apostles  invested  with  the  power  and  authority 
of  governing  the  whole  church  of  Christ  by  their  commission,  Joh.  xx.  21; 
Matth.  xxviii.  19.     What  the  apostles  did  in   order   to  church  government 


XXll  CONTENTS. 

before  Pentecost,  xXu^oj  awofoXn?,'  totto;  tS'ioj^  explained.  No  division  of  pro- 
vinces made  among  the  Apostles  then;  made  appear  by  several  arguments. 
Whether  Paul  and  Peter  were  confined,  one  to  the  circumcision,  the  other 
to  the  uncircumcision,  and  different  churches  erected  by  them  in  the  same 
cities?  What  course  the  apostles  took  in  settling  the  government  of  particular 
churches?  Largely  proved  that  they  observed  the  customs  of  the  Jewish 
synagogue.  The  model  of  tlie  synagogue  government  described.  Whether 
peculiar  ordination  for  the  synagogue  officers?  The  service  of  the  synagogue 
set  forth,  with  the  officers  belonging  to  it.  Grounds  proving  that  the  Apostles 
copied  from  the  synagogue  model.  Community  of  names  and  customs  between 
Jews  and  Christians  then.  Forming  churches  out  of  synagogues:  whether 
any  distinct  Ccetus,  assembly,  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians  in  tlie  same 
cities?  Correspondency  of  the  church  witli  the  synagogue,  in  tlie  orders  of 
public  service.  In  the  custom  of  ordination.  Jero/ne  explained.  The  power 
of  ordination,  in  whom  it  lodgeth  in  the  Christian  Cimrch.  The  opinions  of 
Jerome  and  A  rius  considered.  The  name  o!  presbyters  and  bishops,  explained. 
Three  general  considerations  touching  apostolical  practice.  First,  That  we 
cannot  attain  to  such  a  certainty  of  apostolical  practice,  as  thereon  to  ground 
a  divine  right;  the  uncertainty  of  apostolical  practice  as  to  us  fully  discovered. 
1.  From  the  equivalency  of  the  names  which  should  determine  the  con- 
troversy.  2.  In  that  the  places  in  controversy  may  without  incongruity 
be  understood  of  the  different  forms.  3.  From  the  defectiveness,  ambi.- 
guity,  partiality  and  repugnancy  of  the  records  of  antiquity,  which  should 
inform  us  what  the  apostolical  practice  vras;  these  fully  discoursed  upon.  The 
testimonies  of  EuSebius,  Irenceus,  Tertullian,  Hilary,  Jerome  and  Ignatius 
discussed;  and  these  two  last  proved  not  to  contradict  each  other.  Episcopacy 
owned  as  a  human  institution  by  the  sense  of  the  church.  Second  considera- 
tion; that  in  all  probability  the  apostles  did  not  observe  any  one  fixed  course  of  set- 
tling church  government;  but  settled  it  according  to  the  several  circumstances 
of  time,  places  and  persons.  Several  things  premised  for  clearing  it.  This 
opinion,  though  seemingly  new,  is  proved  at  large  to  be  most  consonant  to 
antiquity,  by  the  several  testimonies  of  Clemens,  Rom,  Alexandrinus,  Epi- 
■phanius,  (whose  testimony  is  corrected,  explained  and  vindicated,)  Hilary  and 
divers  others.  This  opinion  of  great  consequence  towards  our  present  peace. 
No  foundation  for  lay-elders,  either  in  scripture  or  antiquity.  Tiiird  consi. 
deration;  mere  apostolical  practice,  if  supposed,  founds  not  any  divine  right, 
proved  by  a  fourfold  argument.  The  right  of  tithes  resolved  upon  the  same 
principles  with  that  of  church  government.  Rites  and  Institutions  apostolical 
grown  quite  out  of  use  among  the  several  contending  parties.       -         -       254 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  churches'  polity  in  the  ages  after  the  apostles  considered:   Evidences  thence 
that  no  certain  unalterable  form  of  church  government  was  delivered  to  them, 

•  The  lot  or  portion  of  apostleship. 

*  His  own  place. 


CONTENTS.  XXIU 

1.  Because  church  power  did  enlarge  as  the  churches  did.  Whether  any  me- 
tropolitan churches  established  by  the  apostles.  Seven  Churches  of  Asia, 
wlictiier  Mctropolitical.  Philippi  no  metropolis,  cither  in  civil  or  ecclesias- 
tical sense.  Several  degrees  of  enhirgcmcnt  of  churches.  Churches  first 
Christians  in  whole  cities,  proved  by  several  arguments;  tlic  Eulogice  an  evi- 
dcnee  of  it.  Churches  extended  into  the  neighbouring  territories  by  the 
preaching  there  of  city  presbyters;  tiience  comes  the  subordination  between 
them.  Churches  by  degrees  enlarged  to  dioccsses;  from  thence  to  provinces. 
The  original  of  metropolitans  and  patriarchs.  2.  No  certain  form  used  in  all 
churches.  Some  churches  without  bishops, — Scots,  Goths.  Some  with  but 
one  bishop  in  their  whole  country.  Scythian,  Ethiopian  churches  how  go- 
verned. Many  cities  without  bishops.  Diocesses  much  altered.  Bishops 
discontinued  in  several  ciiurches  for  many  years.  3.  Conforming  ecclesias. 
tical  government  to  the  civil  in  the  extent  of  diocesses.  The  suburbiearian 
churches  what.  Bishops  answerable  to  the  civil  governors.  Churches'  power 
rises  from  the  greatness  of  cities.  4.  Validity  of  ordination  by  presbyters  in 
places  where  bishops  were.  The  case  of  Ischyras  discussed;  instances  given 
of  ordination  by  presbyters  not  pronounced  null.  5.  The  church's  prudence 
in  managing  its  affairs,  by  the  several  canons,  provincial  synods.  Code  of 
Canons.  369 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

An  inquiry  into  the  judgment  of  reformed  divines  concerning  the  unalterable 
divine  right  of  particular  forms  of  church  government:  wherein  it  is  made 
appear,  that  the  most  eminent  divines  of  the  Reformation  did  never  conceive 
any  one  form  necessary;  manifested  by  three  arguments.  1.  From  the  judg- 
ment of  those  who  make  the  form  of  cliurch  government  mutable,  and  to 
depend  upon  the  wisdom  of  the  magistrate  and  church.  This  cleared  to  have 
been  the  judgment  of  most  divines  of  the  Church  of  England  since  the  Refor- 
mation. Archbishop  Cranmer's  judgment,  with  others  of  the  Reformation  in 
Edward  the  Sixth's  time,  now  first  published  from  his  authentic  MS.  The 
same  ground  of  settling  Episcopacy  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  time.  The  judgment 
of  Archbishop  Whitgift,  Bishop  Bridges,  Dr.  Loe,  Mr.  Hooker,  largely  to  that 
purpose,  in  King  James's  time.  The  King's  own  opinion.  Dr.  Suteliffe. 
Since  of  Crakanlhorp,  Mr.  Hales,  Mr.  Chillingworth.  The  testimony  of  foreign 
divines  to  the  same  purpose.  Chemnitius,  Zanchy.  French  divines,  Peter 
Moulin,  Fregevil,  Blondcll,  Bochartus,  Amyraldus.  Other-learned  men,  Grotius, 
Lord  Bacon,  &c.  2.  Those  who  look  upon  equality  as  the  primitive  form, 
yet  judge  Episcopacy  lawful.  Augustine  Confession,  Melancthon,  Artieuli 
Smalcaldici.  Prince  of  Anhalt,  Hyperius,  Hemingius:  the  practice  of  most 
foreign  churches.  Calvin  and  Beza  both  approving  Episcopacy  and  Diocesan 
Churches.  Salmasius,  &c.  3.  Those  who  judge  Episcopacy  to  be  the  primi- 
tive form,  yet  look  not  on  it  as  necessary.  Bishop  Jewell,  Folk,  Field,  Bishop 
Downam,  Bishop  Bancroft,  Bishop  Morton,  Bishop  Andrews,  Saravia,  Francis 
Mason,  and  others.     The  conclusion  hence  laid  in  order  to  peace.     Principles 


XXIV  CONTENTS. 

conducing  thereto.  1.  Prudence  must  be  used  in  church  government,  at  last 
confessed  by  all  parties.  Independents  in  elective  synods,  and  church  cove- 
nants, admission  of  members,  number  in  congregations.  Presbyterians  in 
classes,  and  synods,  lay-elders,  &c.  Episcopal  in  diocesses,  causes,  rites,  tfec. 
2.  That  prudence  best,  which  comes  nearest  primitive  practice.  A  Presidency 
for  life  over  an  Ecclesiastical  Senate  showed  to  be  that  form,  in  order  to  it. 
Presbyteries  to  be  restored.  Diocesses  lessened.  Provincial  Synods  kept 
twice  a  year.  The  reasonableness  and  easiness  of  accommodation  shown. 
The  whole  concluded 407 


CONTENTS  OF  A  DISCOURSE    ON   THE    POWER  OF  EXCOM- 
MUNICATION  BY  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 

The  name  of  power  in  a  church  explained.  The  mistake  of  which,  the  founda- 
tion of  Erastianism.  The  notion  of  the  church  opened,  as  it  is  the  subject  of 
power.  The  church  proved  to  be  a  society  distinct  from  the  commonwealth; 
by  reason  of  its  different  nature,  and  divine  institution;  distinct  officers,  different 
rights,  and  ends,  and  peculiar  offences.  The  power  of  the  church  doth  not 
arise  from  mere  confederation.  The  church's  power  founded  on  the  nature  of 
the  Christian  society,  and  not  on  particular  precepts.  The  power  of  church 
officers  not  merely  doctrinal,  proved  by  several  arguments.  Church  power  as 
to  particular  persons  antecedent  to  confederation.  The  power  of  the  keys  re- 
lates to  baptism.  The  church's  power  extends  to  excommunication:  what  it 
is  and  what  grounds  it  had  under  the  law.  No  exclusion  from  temple  worship 
among  the  .lews.  Excommunication  necessary  in  a  Christian  church,  because 
of  the  conditions  supposed  to  exist  in  communion  with  it.  Of  the  incestuous 
person,  and  the  grounds  of  the  apostolical  censure.  Objections  against  excom- 
munication answered."  The  fundamental  rights  of  the  church  continue  after 
its  being  incorporated  into  the  civil  state.  The  magistrate's  power  as  to  excom- 
munication cleared - 443 


A  WEAPON  SALVE 


CHUECH'S   WOUNDS: 


OR, 

THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF  PARTICULAR  FORMS  OF  GOVERNMENT 
IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  GOD,  DISCUSSED  AND  EXAMINED,  AC- 
CORDING TO  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  LAW  OF  NATURE, 
THE  POSITIVE  LAWS  OF  GOD,  THE  PRACTICE  OF  THE 
APOSTLES,  AND  THE  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH:  AND  THE  JUDG- 
MENT OF  REFORMED  DIVINES. 


PART  I 


CHAPTER   I. 

Tliinn;s  necessary  for  the  church's  peace,  must  be  clearly  revealed.  The  form 
of  Church  Government  not  so,  as  appears  by  the  remaining^  controversy  about 
it.  An  evidence  thence,  that  Christ  never  intended  any  one  Form,  as  the 
only  means  to  peace  in  the  church.  The  nature  of  a  Divine  right  discussed. 
Right  in  general  either  makes  things  lawful,  or  else  due.  For  the  former,  a 
non-proliibilion  is  sufficient ;  the  latter,  an  express  command.  Duty  supposeth 
legislation  and  promulgation.  The  question  stated.  Nothing  binds  unal- 
terably but  by  virtue  of  a  standing  law,  and  that  twofold;  The  law  of 
nature  and  positive  laws  of  God.  Three  ways  to  know  when  positive  laws 
arc  unalterable.  The  Divine  right  arising  from  Scripture-examples,  Divine 
acts,  and  Divine  approbation,  considered. 

§  1.  He  that  imposes  any  matter  of  opinion  upon  the  belief 
of  others,  without  giving  evidence  of  reason  for  it  proportion- 
able to  the  confidence  of  his  assertion,  must  either  suppose 
the  thing  propounded  to  carry  such  unquestionable  creden- 
tials of  truth  and  reason  with  it,  that  none  who  know  what 
5 


34  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

they  mean  can  deny  it  entertainment;  or  else  that  his  own 
understanding  hath  attained  so  great  perfection  as  to  have 
authority  sufficient  to  obhge  all  others  to  follow  it.  This  latter 
cannot  be  presumed  among  any  who  have  asserted  the  free- 
dom of  their  own  understandings  from  the  dictates  of  an  in- 
fallible chair:  but  if  any  should  forget  themselves  so  far  as  to 
think  so,  there  needs  no  other  argument  to  prove  them  not  to 
be  infallible  in  their  assertions,  than  this  one  assertion,  that 
they  are  infallible;  it  being  an  undoubted  evidence  that  they 
are  actually  deceived  who  know  so  little  the  measure  of  their 
own  understandings.  The  former  can  never  be  pretended  in 
anything  which  is  a  matter  of  controversy  among  men  who 
have  not  wholly  forgot  they  are  reasonable  creatures,  by  their 
bringing  probable  arguments  for  the  maintaining  one  part  of 
an  opinion  as  well  as  another.  In  which  case,  though  the 
arguments  brought  be  not  convincing  for  the  necessary  en- 
tertaining either  part  to  an  unbiassed  understanding,  yet  the 
difference  of  their  opinions  is  argument  sufficient,  that  the 
thing  contended  for  is  not  so  clear  as  both  parties  would  make 
it  to  be  on  their  own  side;  and  if  it  be  not  a  thing  of  necessity 
to  salvation,  it  gives  men  ground  to  think  that  a  final  decision 
of  the  matter  in  controversy  was  never  intended  as  a  neces- 
sary means  for  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church  of  God.  For 
we  cannot  with  any  show  of  reason  imagine,  that  our  Su- 
preme lawgiver  and  Saviour,  who  hath  made  it  a  necessary 
duty  in  all  true  members  of  his  church  to  endeavour  after  the 
peace  and  unity  of  it,  should  suspend  the  performance  of  that 
duty  upon  a  matter  of  opinion,  which  when  men  have  used 
their  utmost  endeavours  to  satisfy  themselves  about,  they  yet 
find  that  those  very  grounds  which  they  are  most  inclinable 
to  build  their  judgments  upon,  are  either  wholly  rejected  by 
others  as  wise  and  able  as  themselves,  or  else,  it  may  be,  they 
erect  a  far  different  fabric  upon  the  very  same  foundations. 

It  is  no  ways  consistent  with  the  wisdom  of  Christ  in  found- 
ing his  church,  and  providing  for  the  peace  and  settlement  of 
it,  to  leave  it  at  the  mercy  of  men's  private  judgments,  and 
apprehensions  of  things,  than  which  nothing  is  more  uncer- 
tain, and  thereby  make  it  to  depend  upon  a  condition  never 
likely  to  be  attained  in  this  world,  which  is  the  agreement  and 
uniformity  of  men's  opinions.  For  as  long  as  men's  faces  dif- 
fer, their  judgments  will.  And  until  there  be  an  Intellectus 
Averroisticus,  the  same  understanding  in  all  persons,  we  have 
little  ground  to  hope  for  such  a  universal  harmony  in  the  in- 
tellectual  world;  and  yet  even  then  th^  soul  might  pass  a 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  8S 

different  judgment  upon  the  colours  of  things,  according  to  the 
different  tincture   of  the   several   optic-glasses  in  particular 
bodies,  which  it  takes  a  prospect  of  things  through.    Reason 
and  experience  then  give  us  little  hope  of  any  peace  in  the 
church,  if  the  unity  of  men's  judgments  be  supposed  the  condi- 
tion of  it:  the  next  inquiry  then  is,  how  the  peace  of  the  church 
shall  be  attained  or  preserved,  when  men  are  under  such  dif- 
ferent persuasions;  especially  if  they  respect  the  means,  in  order 
to  a  peace  and  settlement.     For  the  ways  to  peace,  like  the 
fertile  soils  of  Greece,  have  been  often  the  occasion  of  the 
greatest  quarrels.     And  no  sickness  is  so  dangerous  as  that 
when  men  are  sick  of  their  remedy,  and  nauseate  that  most 
which  tends  to  their  recovery.    But  while  physicians  quarrel 
about  the  method  of  cure,  the  patient  languishes  under  their 
hands;  and  when  men  increase  contentions  on  the  behalf  of 
peace,  while  they  seem  to  court  it,  they  destroy  it.    The  only 
way  left  for  the  church's  settlement  and  peace  under  such 
variety  of  apprehensions  concerning  means  and  method,  is  to 
pitch  upon  such  a  foundation,  if  possible  to  be  found  out, 
whereon  the  different  parties  retaining  their  private  apprehen- 
sions, may  yet  be  agreed  to  carry  on  the  same  work  in  com- 
mon, in  order  to  the  peace  and  tranquillity  of  the  church  of 
God.     Which  cannot  be  by  leaving  all  absolutely  to  follow 
their  own  ways;  for  that  were  to  build  a  Babel  instead  of 
Salem,  confusion  instead  of  peace;  it  must  be  then  by  con- 
vincing men,  that  neither  of  those  ways  to  peace  and  order, 
which  they  contend  about,  is  necessary  by  way  of  Divine 
command  (though  some  be  as  a  means  to  an  end);  but  which 
particular  way  or  form  it  must  be,  is  wholly  left  to  the  pru- 
dence of  those  in  whose  power  and  trust  it  is  to  see  the  peace 
of  the  church  secured  on  lasting  foundations.     How  nearly 
this  concerns  the  present  debate  about  the  government  of  the 
church,  any  one  may  quickly  discern.     The  main  plea  for 
forms  of  government  in  the  church,  is  their  necessity,  in  order 
to  its  peace  and  order,  and  yet  nothing  hath  produced  more 
disorder  and  confusion  than  our  disputes  have  done.     And 
our  sad  experience  still  tells  us,  that,  after  all  our  debates,  and 
the  evidences  brought  on  either  side,  men  yet  continue  under 
very  different  apprehensions  concerning  it.     But  if  we  more 
strictly  inquire  into  the  causes  of  the  great  distances  and  ani- 
mosities which  have  risen  upon  this  controversy,  we  shall  find 
it  hath  not  been  so  much  the  difference  of  judgments  concern- 
ing the  primitive  form  of  government,  which  hath  divided 
men  so  much  from  one  another,  as  the  prevalency  of  faction 


26  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

and  interest  in  those  whose  revenues  have  come  from  the  rents 
of  the  church,  and  among  others  of  greater  integrity  it  hath 
been  the  principle  or  hypothesis  whicli  men  are  apt  to  take  for 
granted,  without  proof;  viz.  that  it  is  in  no  case  lawful  to  vary 
from  that  form,  which  by  obscure  and  uncertain  conjectures, 
they  conceive  to  have  been  the  primitive  practice.  For  hereby 
men  look  upon  themselves  as  obliged  by  an  unalterable  law, 
to  endeavour  to  effect  the  establishment  of  the  idea  of  govern- 
ment, which  often  affection  and  interest,  more  than  reason 
and  judgment,  have  formed  within  them;  and  so  likewise 
bound  to  overthrow  any  other  form  not  suitable  to  those  cor- 
respondencies which  they  are  already  engaged  to  maintain. 
If  this  then  were  the  cause  of  the  wounds  and  breaches  this 
day  among  us,  the  most  successful  weapon -salve  to  heal  them, 
will  be,  to  anoint  the  sword  which  hath  given  the  wound,  by 
a  seasonable  inquiry  into  the  nature  and  obligation  of  par- 
ticular forms  of  government  in  the  church.  The  main  subject 
then  of  our  present  debate  will  be,  whether  anyone  particular 
form  of  church  government  be  settled  upon  an  unalterable 
Divine  right;  by  virtue  whereof  all  churches  are  bound 
perpetually  to  observe  that  individual  form:  or,  whether  it  be 
]eft  to  the  prudence  of  every  particular  church  to  agree  upon 
that  form  of  government  which  it  judgeth  most  conducible 
within  itself  to  attain  the  end  of  government,  the  peace, 
order,  tranquillity,  and  settlement  of  the  church.  If  this  latter 
be  made  fully  to  appear,  it  is  then  evident  that,  however  men's 
judgments  may  ditfer  concerning  the  primitive  form  of  govern- 
ment, there  is  yet  a  sure  ground  for  men  to  proceed  on  in  order 
to  the  church's  peace.  Wliich  one  consideration  will  be  motive 
sufficient  to  justify  an  attempt  of  this  nature,  it  being  a  design 
of  so  great  importance,  as  the  recovery  of  an  advantageous 
piece  of  ground,  whereon  diHerent  parties  may  with  safety 
not  only  treat,  but  agree  in  order  to  a  speedy  accommodation. 
§  2.  We  come  therefore  closely  to  the  business  in  hand;  and, 
for  the  better  clearing  of  our  passage,  we  shall  first  discuss  the 
nature  of  a  divine  right,  and  show  whereon  an  unalterable 
divine  right  must  be  founded;  and  then  proceed  to  show  how 
far  any  form  of  government  in  the  church  is  settled  upon  such 
a  right.  Right^  in  the  general  is  a  relative  thing,  and  the 
signification  and  import  of  it  must  be  taken  from  the  respecJ 
it  bears  to  the  law  which  gives  it.  For  although  in  common 
acception  it  be  often  understood  to  be  the  same  with  the  law 

'  TO  SiK:iiw  ava'Koyov  Ti,  AriaL  Ethic.  1.  5.  c.  C 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  37 

itself,  as  it  is  the  rule  of  actions  (in  which  sense  jus  nuliiroe, 
gentium,  civile,  is  taken  for  the  several  ^^laivs  of  nature,  na- 
tions, and  jiarticular  states");  yet  I  say  jus,  and  so  rigiit  is 
properly  something  accruing  to  a  person  by  virtue  of  that  law 
which  is  made,  and  so  jus  naturia  is  that  right  which  every 
man  is  invested  in  by  the  law  of  nature,  which  is  properly 
jiis  personie,  and  is  by  some  called  jus  activurn,  which  is 
defined  by  Grotius  to  be  '•  the  moral  quality  of  a  person 
sufiicient  to  do,  or  have  any  just  tiling;"^  by  Lessius  to  be 
"  a  legitimate  power  to  obtain  anything.^  But  the  most  full 
description  of  it  is  given  by  Martinius,  that  "right  is  that 
necessity,  or  rightful  power  attached  to  a  person  to  do, 
omit,  or  suffer  anything."-'  For  we  are  to  consider  that 
there  is  a  twofold  right,  either  such  whereby  a  man  hath 
liberty  and  freedom  by  the  law  to  do  anything;  or  such 
whereby  it  becomes  a  man's  necessary  duty  to  do  anything." 
The  opening  of  the  difference  of  these  two,  and  the  different 
influences  they  have  upon  persons  and  things,  is  very  useful  to 
our  present  purpose:  jus  then  is  first  lliat  which  isjustum;  so 
Isidore,  jus  dictum  quia  justum  est.  "  It  is  called  right,  be- 
cause it  is  just."  So  whatever  is  just,  men  have  right  to  do  it. 
Now  a  thing  may  be  said  to  be  just  either  more  generally,  as 
it  signifies  anything  which  is  lawful,  or  in  a  more  restrained 
sense,  when  it  implies  something  that  is  equal  and  due  to 
another.  So  Aristotle^  distributes  tb  Stxaiov,  justice,  into  to 
vofiifjLov  xat  to  vaov,  law  and  equity.  The  former  sense  of  it  is  here 
only  pertinent,  as  it  implies  anything  which  may  be  done  ac- 
cording to  law,  that  is,  done  jure,  because  a  man  hath  right 
to  do  it.  In  order  to  this  we  are  to  observe,  that  an  express 
positive  command  is  not  necessary  to  make  a  thing  lawful, 
but  a  non-prohibition  is  sulficieiU  for  that.  For  it  being  the 
nature  of  laws  to  bind  up  men's  rights,  what  is  not  forbidden 
by  the  law  is  thereby  supposed  to  be  left  in  men's  power 
still  to  do.  So  that  it  is  to  little  purpose  for  men  to  seek 
for  positive  commands  for  every  particular  action  to  make 
it  lawful;  it  suffices  to  make  any  action  lawful,  if  there  be 
no  bar  made    by   any  direct   or  consequential   prohibition; 

1  Qualitas  moralis   personos  compctcns  ad  aliquid  juste  liabcndum  aut  agen- 
dum.— Grot,  de  jure  belli  et  pac.  lib.  I.  cap.  I.  sect.  4. 

2  Potestas  Icgitima  ad  rein  aliquam   obtincndam. — Loss,  dc  justit.  ct  jure  1.  2. 
c,  2.  Dub.  1.  Elymol.  Pbilol.  voc.  jus. 

3  Adhcercns  pcrsontE  neccssitas  vtl    potestas  recta  ad  aliquid   agcndutn,  omit- 
tctiduni,  aut  pernuttendum. 

•*  Elymol.  J.  5,  cap.  3. 
5  Ethic.  1.  5,  cap.  2. 


38  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

unless  it  be  in  such  things  whose  lawfuhiess  and  goodness 
depend  upon  a  mere  positive  command.  For  in  those  things 
whicli  are  therefore  only  good,  because  commanded,  a  com- 
mand is  necessary  to  make  them  lawful,  as  in  immediate 
positive  acts  of  worship  towards  God;  in  which  nothing  is 
lawful  any  further  than  it  is  founded  upon  a  divine  command. 
I  speak  not  of  circumstances  belonging  to  the  acts  of  worship, 
but  whatever  is  looked  upon  as  a  part  of  divine  worship,  if  it 
be  not  commanded  by  God  himself,  it  is  no  ways  acceptable 
to  him,  and  therefore  not  lawful.  So  our  Saviour  cites  that 
out  of  the  prophet,  "/;z  vain  do  they  worshij)  me,  teaching 
for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men^  which  the  Chaldee 
paraphrast  and  Syriac  version  render  thus,  the  worship  they 
offer  to  me  is  from  human  precept  and  authority ,2  plainly  im- 
puting the  reason  of  God's  rejecting  their  worship,  to  the 
want  of  a  divine  command  for  what  they  did.  And  therefore 
Tcrtullian^  condemns  all  those  things  to  be  devoid  of  sanc- 
tion and  to  be  attributed  to  superstition,''  as  superstitions, 
which  are  done  without  the  warrant  of  divine  command.* 
Although  even  here  we  may  say  too,  that  it  is  not  merely  the 
want  of  a  divine  precept  which  makes  any  part  of  divine  wor- 
ship uncommanded  by  God  unlawful,  but  the  general  prohibi- 
tion, that  nothing  should  be  done  in  the  immediate  worship  of 
God,  but  what  we  have  a  divine  command  for.  However,  in 
matters  of  mere  decency  and  order  in  the  church  of  God,  or  in 
any  other  civil  action  of  the  lives  of  men,  it  is  enough  to  make 
things  lawful,  if  they  are  not  forbidden.  But  against  this, 
that  a  non-prohibition  is  warrant  enough  to  make  anything 
lawful,  this  objection  will  be  soon  levied,  that  it  is  an  argu- 
ment «6  authoritate  negative,  from  authority  negatively,  and 
therefore  is  of  no  force.  To  which  I  answer,  tliat  the  rule,  if 
taken  without  limitation,  upon  which  this  objection  is  founded, 
is  not  true;  for  although  an  argument  ab  authoritate  negative, 
as  to  matter  of  fact  avails  not,  yet  the  negative,  from  autho- 
rity, as  to  matter  of  law  and  command,  is  of  great  force  and 
strength.  I  grant  the  argument  holds  not  here;  we  do  not 
read  that  ever  Christ  or  his  apostles  did  such  a  thing,  there- 
fore it  is  not  to  be  done;  but  this,  we  read  of  no  law  or  pre- 
cept commanding  us  to  do  it,  therefore  it  is  not  unlawful  not 

1  Mat.  XV,  9;  Isa.  xxix,  11. 

2  Reverentia  quam  mihi  exhibont  est  ex  prsecepto  et  documento  humano. 

3  Tertull.  de  Orat.  cap.  12,  v.  Herald,  digress,  lib.  2,  cap.  2,  in  Tcrtull. 
*  Vacuce  observationis  ct  superstitioni  dcputanda. 

5  Sine  ullius  dominici  aut  apostolici  prajcepli  auctoritatc. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  S9 

to  do  it;  and  wc  read  of  no  prohibition  forbidding  us  to  do  it, 
therefore  it  nriav  be  lawfully  done;  this  holds  true  and  good, 
and  that  upon  this  twofold  reason. 

First,  from  God's  intention  in  making  known  his  will;  which 
was  not  to  record  every  particular  fact  done  by  himself,  or 
Christ,  or  his  apostles,  but  it  was  to  lay  down  those  general 
and  standing  laws,  whereby  his  church  in  all  ages  should  be 
guided  and  ruled:  and  in  order  to  be  a  perpetual  obligation 
upon  the  consciences,  there  must  be  a  suilicient  promulgation 
of  those  laws  which  must  bind  men.  Thus  in  the  case  of  in- 
fant baptism,  it  is  a  very  weak  unconcluding  argument  to  say- 
that  infants  must  not  be  baptized,  because  we  never  read  that 
Christ  or  his  apostles  did  it;  for  this  is  a  negative  in  matter  of 
fact;  but  on  the  other  side,  it  is  an  evidence  that  infants  are 
not  to  be  excluded  from  baptism,  because  there  is  no  divine 
law  which  doth  prohibit  their  admission  into  the  church  by 
it;  for  this  is  the  negative  of  a  law;  and  if  it  had  been  Christ's 
intention  to  have  excluded  any  from  admission  into  the  church, 
who  were  admitted  before  as  infants  were,  there  must  have 
been  some  positive  law  whereby  such  an  intention  of  Christ 
should  have  been  expressed;  for  nothing  can  make  that  un- 
lawful which  was  a  duty  before,  but  a  direct  and  express 
prohibition  from  the  legislator  himself,  who  alone  hath  power 
to  rescind  as  well  as  to  make  laws.  And  therefore  anti- 
pccdo-baptists  must,  instead  of  requiring  a  positive  command 
for  baptizing  infants,  themselves  produce  an  express  prohibi- 
tion excluding  them,  or  there  can  be  no  appearance  of  reason 
given,  why  the  gospel  should  exclude  any  from  those  privi- 
leges, to  which  the  law  admitted  them.  Secondly,  I  argue 
from  the  intention  and  end  of  laws,  which  is  to  circumscribe 
and  restrain  the  natural  liberty  of  man,  by  binding  him  to  the 
observation  of  some  particular  precepts.  And  therefore  where 
there  is  not  a  particular  command  and  prohibition,  it  is  in  na- 
ture and  reason  supj)osed  that  men  are  left  to  their  natural 
freedom;  as  is  plain  in  positive  human  laws;  wherein  men  by 
compact  and  agreement  for  their  mutual  good  in  societies, 
were  willing  to  restrain  themselves  from  those  things  which 
should  prejudice  the  good  of  the  community;  this  being  the 
ground  of  men's  first  inclosing  their  rights  and  common  privi- 
leges, it  must  be  supposed,  that  what  is  not  so  inclosed,  is  left 
common  to  all  as  their  just  right  and  privilege  still.  So  it  is  in 
divine  positive  laws,  God  intending  to  bring  some  of  mankind 
to  happiness,  by  conditions  of  his  own  appointing,  hath  laid 
down  many  positive  precepts,  binding  men  to  the  practice  of 


40  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

those  things  as  duties  which  are  commanded  by  him.     But 
where  we  find  no  command  for  performance,  we  cannot  loolc 
upon  that  as  an  immediate  duty,  because  of  the  necessary  re- 
lation between  duty  and  law;  and  so  where  we  find  no  pro- 
hibition, there  we  can  have  no  ground  to  think  that  men  are 
debarred  from  the  liberty  of  doing  things  not  forbidden.     For 
as  we  say  of  exceptions,  as  to  general  laws  and  rules,  that  an 
exception  expressed  firmat  regulam  in  non  exceptis,  con- 
firms the  rule  in  things  not  excepted,  makes  the  rule  stronger 
in  things  not  expressed  as  excepted;  so  it  is  as  to  divine  pro- 
hibitions; as  to  the  positives,  that  those  prohibitions  we  read 
in  scripture  make  other  things  not  prohibited  to  be  therefore 
lawful,  because  not  expressly  forbidden.     As  God  forbidding 
Jidam  to  taste  of  the  fruit  of  one  tree,  did  give  him  a  liberty 
to  taste  of  all  the  rest.     Indeed,  had  not  God  at  all  revealed 
his  will  and  laws  to  us  by  his  word,  there  might  have  been 
some  plea  why  men  should  have  waited  for  particular  reve- 
lations to  dictate  the  goodness  or  evil  of  particular  actions,  not 
determined  by  the  law  of  nature;  but  since  God  hath  revealed 
his  will,  there  can  be  no  reason  given  why  those  things  should 
not  be  lawful  to  do,  which  God  hath  not  thought  fit  to  forbid 
men  the  doing  of     Further  we  are  to  observe,  that  in  these 
things  which  are  thus  undetermined  in  reference  to  an  obli- 
gation to  duty,  but  left  to  our  natural  liberty  as  things  lawful, 
the  contrary  to  that  which  is  thus  lawful,  is  not  thereby  made 
unlawful.     But  both  parts  are  left  in  men's  power  to  do,  or 
not  to  do;  as  is  evident  in  all  those  things  which  carry  a  general 
equity  with  them,  and  are  therefore  consonant  to  the  law  of 
nature,  but  have  no  particular  obligation,  as  not  flowing  im- 
mediately from  any  dictate  of  the  natural  law.     Thus  com- 
munity of  goods  is  lawful  by  the  law  and  principles  of  nature; 
yet  every  man  hath  a  lawful  right  to  his  goods  by  dominion 
and  propriety.     And  in  a  state  of  community  it  was  the  right 
of  every  man  to  impropriate  upon  a  just  equality,  supposing 
a  preceding  compact  and  mutual  agreement.    Whence  it  is 
that  some  of  the  schoolmen  say,  that  although  the  law  of  na- 
ture be  immutable,  as  to  its  precepts  and  prohibitions,  yet  not 
as  to  its  demonstrations  (as  they  call  them);   as.  Do  as  you 
would  be  done  to,  binds  always  indispensably;  .but,  that  i?i  a 
state  of  nature  all  things  are  common  to  all.     This  is  true, 
but  it  binds  not  men  to  the  necessary  observance  of  it.  These 
which  theyi  call  demonstrations  are  only  such  things  as  are 

»  Alex.  AlensiSj  part.  3,  q.  27,  m.  3. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  41 

agreeable  to  nature,  but  not  particularly  commended  by  any 
indispensable  precept  of  it.  Thus  likewise  it  is  agreeable  to 
nature,  that  the  next  of  the  kindred  should  be  heir  to  him  who 
dies  intestate;  but  he  may  lawfully  waive  his  interest  if  he 
please.  Now  to  apply  this  to  our  present  case;  according  to 
this  sense  ofjtis  for  that  which  is  lawful,  those  things  may  be 
said  to  he  jure  divino,  which  are  not  determined  one  way  or 
other  by  any  positive  law  of  God,  but  are  left  wholly,  as 
things  lawful,  to  the  prudence  of  men  to  determine  in  a  way 
agreeable  to  natural  light,  and  the  general  rules  of  the  word 
of  God.  In  which  sense  I  assert  any  particular  form  of  go- 
vernment agreed  on  by  the  governors  of  the  church,  consonant 
to  the  general  rules  of  scripture,  to  be  by  divine  right,  i.  e. 
God  by  his  own  laws  hath  given  men  a  power  and  liberty  to 
determine  the  particular  form  of  church  government  among 
them.  And  hence  it  may  appear,  that  though  one  form  of 
government  be  agreeable  to  the  word,  it  doth  not  follow  that 
another  is  not;  or,  because  one  is  lawful,  another  is  unlawful: 
but  one  form  may  be  more  agreeable  to  some  parts,  places, 
people  and  times,  than  others  are.  In  which  case  that  form 
of  government  is  to  be  settled  which  is  most  agreeable  to  the 
present  state  of  a  place,  and  is  most  advantageously  conducible 
to  promoting  the  ends  of  church  government  in  that  place  or 
nation.  I  conclude  then  according  to  this  sense  of  jus,  that 
the  Ratio  regiminis  Ecclesiastici  est  juris  divini  naturalise 
•^'the  reason  of  church  government  is  naturally  of  divine  right," 
that  is,  that  the  reason  of  church  government  is  immutable, 
and  holds  in  all  times  and  places,  which  is  the  preservation 
of  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church;  but  the  modus  regiminis 
Ecclesiastici,  "  the  particular  form  of  that  government,"  is 
juris  divi7ii  permissivi,  of  the  right  of  divine  permission  that 
both  the  laws  of  God  and  nature  have  left  it  to  the  prudence 
of  particular  churches  to  determine.  This  may  be  cleared  by 
a  parallel  instance.  The  reason  and  the  science  of  physic  is 
immutable,  but  the  particular  prescriptions  of  that  science  are 
much  varied,  according  to  the  different  tempers  of  patients. 
And  the  very  same  reason  in  physic  which  prescribes  one 
sort  to  one,  doth  prescribe  a  different  sort  to  another,  because 
the  temper  or  disease  of  the  one  calls  for  a  different  method 
of  cure;  yet  the  ground  and  end  of  both  prescriptions  were  the 
same,  to  recover  the  patient  from  his  distemper.  So  I  say  in 
our  present  case;  the  ground  and  reason  of  government  in  the 
church  is  unalterable  6y  divine  right;  yea,  and  that  very 
reason  which  determines  the  particular  forms:  but  yet,  those 
6 


42  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

particular  forms  flowing  from  that  immutable  reason,  may  be 
very  different  in  themselves,  and  may  alter  according  to  the 
several  circumstances  of  times,  and  places,  and  persons,  for 
the  more  commodious  advancing  the  main  end  of  govern- 
ment. As  in  morality  there  can  be  but  one  thing  to  a  man 
in  genere  summi  boni,  "in  the  general  class  of  the  chief 
good,"  quo  tendit  et  in  quod  dirigit  arcum  to  what  it  tends 
and  towards  what  he  directs  his  aim,  to  which  he  refers  all 
other  things;  yet  there  may  be  many  things  in  genere  boni 
conducentis,  "  as  means  in  order  to  attaining  that  end."  So 
though  church  government  vary  not  as  to  the  ground,  end, 
and  reason  of  it;  yet  it  may,  as  to  the  particular  forms  of  it: 
as  is  further  evident,  as  to  forms  of  civil  government:  though 
the  end  of  all  be  the  same;  yet  monarchy,  aristocracy,  and  de- 
mocracy, are  in  themselves  lawful  means  for  the  attaining  the 
same  common  end.  And  as  Jilensis  determines  it,  in  the 
case  of  community  of  goods  by  the  law  of  nature,  that  the 
same  reason  of  the  law  of  nature  which  did  dictate  commu- 
nity of  goods  to  be  most  suitable  to  man  in  the  state  of  inno- 
cency,  did  in  his  fallen  estate  prescribe  a  propriety  of  goods, 
as  most  agreeable  to  it;  so  that  herein  the  modus  obsej'vantisey 
"the  mode  of  observing  it,"  differed,  but  the  ratio prseceptiy 
"the  reason  of  the  precept,"  was  the  same  still;  which  was 
man's  comfortable  enjoyment  of  the  accommodations  of  life; 
which  in  innocency  might  have  been  best  done  by  community, 
but  in  man's  degenerate  condition,  must  be  by  a  propriety. 
So  the  same  reason  of  church  government  may  call  for  an 
equality  in  the  persons,  acting  as  governors  of  the  church  in 
one  place,  which  may  call  for  superiority  and  subordination 
in  another. 

§  3.  Havingnowdespatchedthefirstsenseof  a  divine  right,  I 
come  to  the  other,  which  is  the  main  seat  of  the  controversy, 
and  therefore  will  require  a  longer  debate.  And  so  Jus  is  that 
which  makes  a  thing  to  become  a  duty:  sojus  quasi jussum,  "it 
is  law  because  it  is  commanded;"  and jussa  Jura,  "laws  com- 
manded," as  Festus  explains  it,  i.  e.  that  whereby  a  thing  is  not 
only  licitum,  lawful,  in  men's  lawful  power  to  do,  or  not,  but 
is  made  debitum,a.  debt,  and  is  constituted  a  duty  by  the  force 
and  virtue  of  a  divine  command.  Now  man's  obligation  to  any- 
thing as  a  duty  doth  suppose  on  the  part  of  him  from  whose 
authority  he  derives  his  obligation,  both  legislation  and  pro- 
mulgation. First,  there  must  be  a  legislative  power  com- 
manding it;  which  if  it  respects  only  the  outward  actions  of  a 
man  in  a  nation  embodied  by  laws,  is  the  supreme  magistrate; 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  43 

but  if  the  obligation  respect  the  consciences  of  all  men  directly 
and  immediately,  then  none  have  the  power  to  settle  anything 
by  way  of  an  universal  standing  law,  but  God  himself;  who, 
by  being  sole  creator  and  governor  of  the  world,  hath  alone 
absolute  and  independent  dominion  and  authority  over  the 
souls  of  men.  But,  besides  legislation,  another  thing  neces- 
sary to  man's  obligation  to  duty,  is,  a  sufficient  promulgation 
of  the  law  made;  because  though  before  this  there  be  the 
ground  of  obedience  on  man's  part  to  all  God's  commands, 
yet  there  must  be  a  particular  declaration  of  the  laws,  whereby 
man  is  bound  in  order  to  the  determination  of  his  duty.  Which 
in  positives  is  so  absolutely  necessary,  that  unless  there  be  a 
sufficient  promulgation  and  declaration  of  the  will  of  the  law- 
giver, man's  ignorance  is  excusable  in  reference  to  them;  and 
so  frees  from  guilt  and  the  obligation  to  punishment.  But  it 
is  otherwise  in  reference  to  the  dictates  of  the  natural  law, 
wherein  though  man  be  at  a  loss  for  them,  yet  his  own  con- 
tracted pravity  being  the  cause  of  his  blindness,  leaves  him 
without  excuse.  Hence  it  is  said,  with  good  reason,  that 
though  man  under  the  moral  law  was  bound  to  obey  gospel 
precepts,  as  to  the  reason  and  substance  of  the  duties  by  them 
commanded,  as  faith,  repentance  from  dead  works,  and  new 
obedience;  yet  a  more  full  and  particular  revelation  by  the 
gospel  was  necessary,  for  the  particular  determination  of  the 
general  acts  of  obedience  to  particular  objects  under  their 
several  modifications  expressed  in  the  gospel.  And  therefore 
faith  and  repentance  under  the  moral  law,  taken  as  a  tran- 
script of  the  law  of  nature,  were  required  under  their  general 
notion  as  acts  of  obedience,  but  not  in  that  particular  relation 
which  those  acts  have  under  the  covenant  of  grace.  Which 
particular  determination  of  the  general  acts  to  special  objects 
under  different  respects,  some  call  new  precepts  of  the  gospel, 
others  new  light;  but  taking  that  light  as  it  hath  an  influence 
upon  the  consciences  of  men,  the  difl'erence  is  so  small  that  it 
deserves  not  to  be  named  a  controversy. 

But  that  which  I  am  now  clearing  is  this;  that  whatsoever 
binds  Christians  as  a  universal  standing  law,  must  be  clearly 
revealed  as  such,  and  laid  down  in  Scripture  in  such  evident 
terms,  as  all  who  have  their  senses  exercised  therein,  may 
discern  it  to  have  been  the  will  of  Christ,  that  it  should  per- 
petually oblige  all  believers  to  the  world's  end,  as  is  clear  in 
the  case  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper.  But  here  I  shall 
add  one  thing  by  way  of  caution;  that  there  is  not  the  same 


44  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

necessity  for  a  particular  and  clear  revelation  in  the  alteratiun 
of  a  law  unrepealed  in  some  circumstances  of  it,  as  there  is 
for  the  establishing  of  a  new  law.  As  to  the  former,  viz.  the 
change  of  a  standing  law  as  to  some  particular  circumstance, 
a  different  practice  by  persons  guided  by  an  infallible  spirit  is 
sufficient,  which  is  the  case  as  to  the  observation  of  the  Lord's 
day  under  the  gospel:  for  the  fourth  command  standing  in  force 
as  to  the  morality  of  it,  a  different  practice  by  the  apostles 
may  be  sufficient  for  the  particular  determination  of  the  more 
ritual  and  occasional  part  of  it,  which  was  the  limitation  of 
the  observation  of  it  to  that  certain  day.  So  likewise  that 
other  law  standing  in  force,  that  persons  taken  into  covenant 
with  God  should  be  admitted  by  some  visible  sign,  apostoli- 
cal practice,  clearly  manifested,  may  be  sufficient  ground  to 
conclude  what  the  mind  of  Christ  was,  as  to  the  application 
of  it  to  particular  persons;  and  what  qualifications  are  requi- 
site in  such  as  are  capable  of  admission,  as  in  the  case  of  in- 
fants. Whereby  it  is  clear  why  there  is  no  particular  law  or 
command  in  reference  to  them  under  the  gospel,  because  it 
was  only  the  application  of  a  law  in  force  already  to  particular 
persons,  which  might  be  gathered  sufficiently  from  the  apos- 
tles' practice,  the  analogy  of  the  dispensation,  the  equal  reason 
of  exclusion  under  the  law,  and  yet  notwithstanding  the  con- 
tinual admission  of  them  then  into  the  same  gospel  covenant; 
circumcision  being  the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith.^  But 
this,  by  the  way,  to  prevent  mistakes.  We  must  now  by 
parity  of  reason  say,  that  either  the  former  law,  in  those 
things  wherein  it  was  not  typical,  must  hold  in  reference  to 
the  form  of  government  in  the  church  of  Christ;  or  else  that 
Christ  by  a  universal  law  hath  settled  all  order  in  church  go- 
vernment among  the  pastors  themselves;  or  else  that  he  hath 
left  it  to  the  prudence  of  every  particular  church,  to  determine 
its  own  form  of  government,  which  I  conceive  is  the  direct 
state  of  the  question  about  divine  right,  viz.  whether  the  par- 
ticular form  of  government  in  the  church  be  settled  by  a  uni- 
versal binding  law  or  not? 

§  4.  But  for  a  further  clearing  the  state  of  the  question,  we 
must  consider  what  it  is  that  makes  an  unalterable  divine 
right,  or  a  standing  law  in  the  church  of  God:  for  those  who 
found  forms  of  government  upon  a  divine  right,  do  not  plead 
a  law  in  express  terms,  but  such  things  from  whence  a  divine 
right  by  law  may  be  inferred.     Which  I  now  come  to  exa- 

'  Ivuni.  iv.  8. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  43 

mine;  and  that  which  I  lay  down  as  a  poslulatum^  or  a 
certain  conchision  according  to  which  I  shall  examine  others' 
assertions  concerning  divine  right,  is,  that  nothing  is  founded 
upon  a  divine  right,  nor  can  bind  Christians  directly  or  conse- 
quentially as  a  positive  law,  but  what  may  be  certainly  known 
to  have  come  from  God,  with  an  intention  to  oblige  believers 
to  the  world's  end.  For  either  we  must  say,  it  binds  Chris- 
tians as  a  law  when  God  did  not  intend  it  should;  or  else 
God's  intentions  to  bind  all  believers  by  it,  must  be  clearly 
manifested.  Now  then,  so  many  ways,  and  no  more,  as  a 
thing  may  be  known  to  come  from  God  with  an  intention  to 
oblige  all  perpetually,  a  thing  may  be  said  to  be  of  an  unal- 
terable divine  right,  and  those  can  be  no  more  than  these  two; 
either  by  the  law  of  nature,  or  by  some  positive  law  of  God: 
nothing  else  can  bind  universally  and  perpetually  but  one  of 
these  two,  or  by  virtue  of  them,  as  shall  be  made  appear.  I 
begin  with  the  law  of  nature.  The  law  of  nature  binds  indis- 
pensably, as  it  depends  not  upon  any  arbitrary  constitutions, 
but  is  founded  upon  the  intrinsic  nature  of  good  and  evil  in 
the  things  themselves,  antecedently  to  any  positive  declaration 
of  God's  will.  So  that  till  the  nature  of  good  and  evil  be 
changed,  that  law  is  unalterable  as  to  its  obligation.  When, 
I  say,  the  law  of  nature  is  indispensable,  my  meaning  is,  that 
in  those  things  which  immediately  flow  from  that  law  by  way 
of  precept,  as  the  three  first  commands  of  the  moral  law,  no 
man  can  by  any  positive  law  be  exempted  from  his  obligation 
to  do  them;  neither  by  any  abrogation  of  the  laws  themselves, 
nor  by  derogation,  nor  interpretation  of  them,  nor  change  in 
the  object,  matter,  or  circumstance,  whatsoever  it  be.  JVow, 
although  the  formal  7'eason  of  man's  obedience  to  the  pre- 
cepts of  this  law,  be  the  conformity  which  the  things  com- 
manded have  to  the  divine  nature  and  goodness;  yet  I  con- 
ceive the  efficient  cause  of  man's  obligation  to  these  things, 
is  to  be  fetched  from  the  will,  command,  and  pleasure  of  God: 
not  as  it  is  taken  for  an  arbitrary,  positive  will,  but  as  it  is  ex- 
ecutive of  divine  purposes,  and  as  it  engraves  such  a  law  upon 
the  hearts  of  men.  For,  notwithstanding  man's  reason,  con- 
sidered in  itself,  be  the  chief  instrument  of  discovery  what  are 
these  necessary  duties  of  human  nature  (in  which  sense  .^m- 
totle^  defines  a  natural  law  to  be   that  which  ttavtaxov  t'tjv 


'  What  one  demands  to  be  granted,  as  something  self-evident,  from  what  has 
been  untcccdcnlly  proved.     Am.  Ed. 
-  Etiiie.  1.  5,  cu[).  10. 


4B  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

avtriv  ixf''  Svvafiiv  "  hath  everywhere  the  same  force  and 
strength,"  i.  e.  as  s/indronicus  Rhodius  very  well  interprets 
it,  "  among  all  that  have  the  free  use  of  their  reason  and 
faculties,  neither  are  diseased  nor  perverted  in  viind^)  yet  I 
say,  it  is  not  bare  reason  which  binds  men  to  the  doing  of 
those  tilings  commanded  in  that  law,  but  as  it  is  expressive 
of  an  eternal  law,  and  deduceth  its  obligation  from  thence. 
And  so  this  law,  if  we  respect  the  rise,  extent,  and  immuta- 
bility of  it,  may  be  called  deservedly  the  law  of  nature;  but  if 
we  look  at  the  emanation,  efflux,  and  original  of  it,  it  is  a 
divine  law,  and  so  it  is  called  by  Molina,  Jilphonsus  t).  Castro, 
and  others.^  For  the  sanction  of  this  law  of  nature,  as  well  as 
others,  depends  upon  the  will  of  God,  and  therefore  the  obli- 
gation must  come  from  him,  it  being  in  the  power  of  no  other 
to  punish  for  the  breach  of  a  law,  but  those  who  had  the 
legislative  power  to  cause  the  obligation  to  it.  It  appears 
then  from  hence,  that  whatever  by  just  consequence  can  be 
deduced  from  the  preceptive  law  of  nature,  is  of  divine  right, 
because  from  the  very  nature  of  that  law  (it  being  indispensa- 
ble) it  appears  that  God  had  an  intent  to  oblige  all  persons  in 
the  world  by  it. 

§  5.  The  second  way  whereby  we  may  know  what  is  of  di- 
vine right,  is  by  God's  positive  laws;  for  God  being  the  supreme 
governor  of  the  world,  hath  the  legislative  power  in  his  hands, 
to  bind  to  the  performance  of  what  duties  he  please,  which 
carry  no  repugnancy  in  them  to  his  divine  nature  and  good- 
ness. Hence  arise  all  those  positive  laws  of  God  which  we 
have  in  Scripture;  for  God's  end  in  his  written  law  was,  that 
man  should  have  a  copy  of  all  divine  constitutions  by  him, 
that  he  might  therein  read  what  his  duty  was  towards  his 
Maker.  The  precepts  of  the  law  of  nature  are  by  the  Jews 
called  D'LJDB'O  judgments  and  nrvo  commandments  absolutely, 
without  any  addition;  because  they  are  of  such  things  as  do 
perpetually  bind,  which  because  they  are  known  to  all  by 
natural  right,  they  sometimes  call  them  n>nn  m^D  the  precepts 
of  knowledge  and  being  that  their  righteousness  is  so  evident 
and  apparent,  they  call  them  Drntyon  onm  the  words  of  right- 
eousness: but  the  clearest  difference  between  the  precepts  of 
the  law  of  nature,  and  other  positive  commands,  is  that  which 


•  nap  avDjaJTTOK  Toif  te  o^Soi;  Kai  vywi  t^ous-i,  cv^s  toi;  voo'ovo'i  Taj  <})fEvaf  >^  ^tzi;pafA.y,s- 
vei;. 

2  V.  Seldcn.  de  jure  Nat.  apud  Ebras.  lib.  1,  c.  7  and  8.  Mol.  de  just  and  iur. 
p.  1,  disp.  3.     Alplions.  de  leg.  pur.  1.  2,  c.  14. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  47 

the  famous  Is.  Cascmbon^  takes  notice  of  out  of  the  Jewish 
doctors.^  The  most  learned  among  the  rabbis  observe  that 
there  is  this  difference  between  xwao  and  D'pin,  that  Mitzvoth 
signifies  the  laws  of  which  the  reason  is  evident,  as  worship 
God,  Honour  thy  fatiier  and  mother;  but  they  say,  that  Chu- 
kim  denotes  the  estabUshed  decrees  of  tliose  things  of  which 
the  reason  is  known  only  to  God,  as  circumcision  and  the 
like. 2  The  reason  of  the  laws  of  nature  is  evident,  but  of 
positive  laws  tiiere  is  no  reason  to  be  given  i^o  nrn  xbx  irx 
no  other  except  the  decree  of  the  king;  no  other  account  but 
the  will  of  God,3  The  laws  of  nature  are  by  the  LXX.  often 
called  Stxatcj/na-fa,  precepts,  and  so  used,  Rom.  ii.  IG.  by  Justin 
Martyr,'^  to.  xaeo%ov,  xac  ^van,  xav  aiwi/ta  xa:^.a,  Universally,  laws 
according  to  nature,  and  properly  eternal;  by  Josephus,  trji 
^vasui  bixaiuixata,  the  preccpts  of  nature;  but  God's  positive  laws 
are  called  IvtoXM,  commandments,  thence  we  read  of  Zachary 
and  Elizabeth,  Luke  i.  6,  no^ivofjuvoi  rtasaij  I'atj  Ivtoxati  xao 
Sixacufxaav,  &c.  ivulking  in  all  the  ordinances  and  command- 
ments of  God  blameless,  and  those  are  called  vofio^  ivto^av 
Iv  Soy ficta I,  by  S.  Paul,  Eiphes.  ii.  15,  ^'  the  laiu  of  command- 
jnents  in  ordinances.^'  Now  although  this  difference  be  not 
always  observed  in  the  words  in  Scripture,  yet  there  is  a  vast 
difference  between  the  things  themselves,  though  both  equally 
commanded  by  God.  That  which  is  most  to  our  present 
purpose  to  observe,  is,  that  positives  being  mutable  and  alter- 
able in  themselves,  a  bare  divine  command  is  not  sufficient 
to  make  them  immutable,  unless  there  be  likewise  expressed, 
that  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  they  should  always  continue. 
This  was  that  which  the  Jews  stumbled  at  so  much,  and  do 
to  this  day;  because  they  are  assured  their  law  came  once 
from  God,  therefore  it  must  of  necessity  have  a  perpetual  ob- 
ligation: as  may  be  seen  in  their  two  great  doctors  Maimo- 
nides  and  Abarbinel,^  who  both  of  them  make  the  eternity 
of  the  law  the  fundamental  articles  of  their  creed.  But  Mar- 
Ame/ splits  this  article  into  two;  whereof  the  first  is,  that  the 


'  Exercit.  eccles.  advers,  bar.  exer.  16,  sec.  43. 

2  Observant  doctissimi  h  rabbinis,  inter  ni^fO  et  D^plPI  banc  esse  differentiam, 
quod  Mitsvoth,  sive  prtEccptorum  ratio  aperta  est,  ut,  Deum  cole,  honora  patrem 
et  niatrem;  at  Chukim,  statuta  sive  decreta  earum  rerum  esse  dicunt  quarum 
OytJ  ralio  soli  Deo  sit  nota,  ut  Circumcisionis  et  similium. 

3  Sold,  de  jure  Nat.  apud  Ebr.  1.  i.  cap.  10. 

■»  Colloq.  cum  Tryph.  Judoec.  Origin,  lib.  16,  cap.  10,  V.  Grot.  Luc.  i.  6. 
5  Maiinon.  de  fundani.  legis,  cap.  9,  sect,  1.     Abarb.  de  capit  sidei.  cap.  8,  p. 
29,  ed.  vorstii. 


48v  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

law  of  Moses  shall  never  be  changed;  the  other,  that  no  other 
law  shall  come  instead  of  it.  The  original  of  which  grand 
error  is  from  want  of  observing  the  difference  between  things 
commanded  by  God,  some  of  which  are  good,  and  therefore 
commanded;  others  commanded,  and  therefore  good.  In 
which  latter,  if  the  reason  of  the  command  ceaseth,  the  com- 
mand itself  obligeth  no  longer.  As  the  ceremonial  law  was 
to  be  their  rtai5ay«yoj  hi  x^tjor,  schoolmaster  to  Christ,  which  is 
not  meant  in  regard  of  the  sharp  severe  nature  of  the  law  to 
drive  them  unto  Christ,^  as  it  is  by  many  interpreted;  but  the 
law  is  a  pedagogue  in  regard  of  its  tutorage  and  conduct,  as 
it  signified  him  whose  office  it  v/as  to  conduct  noblemen's 
children  to  the  school  (as  a  learned  man  observes).  This 
being  then  the  office  of  the  law,  when  the  church  was  now 
entered  into  Christ's  school,  the  office  of  this  pedagogue  then 
ceased.  And  so  the  ceremonial  law  needed  no  abrogation  at 
all,  expiring  of  itself  at  Christ's  coming,  as  laws  made  for  the 
times  of  war  do  when  peace  comes.  Only  because  the  Jews 
were  so  hardly  persuaded  that  it  should  expire  (the  believing 
Jews  conceiving  at  first  the  gospel  came  rather  to  help  them 
to  obey  the  law  oi  Moses  than  to  cancel  the  obligation  of  it), 
therefore  it  was  necessary  that  a  more  honourable  burial 
should  be  given  to  it,  and  the  apostles  s\\ovi\(\.  prorostris,  from 
the  rostrum  declare  more  fully  that  believers  were  freed  from 
that  yoke  of  ceremonies,  under  which  the  neck  of  their  fore- 
fathers had  groaned  so  long.  It  appears  then  that  a  positive 
law  coming  from  God  doth  not  merely  by  virtue  of  its  being 
enacted  by  God,  bind  perpetually  all  persons,  unless  there  be 
a  declaration  of  God's  will  adjoined  that  it  should  do  so. 

§  6.  It  will  be  here  then  well  worth  our  inquiry  to  find  out 
some  x^vt'Ti^ia  "distinguishing  marks"  whereby  to  know  when 
positive  laws  bind  immutably,  when  not;  I  shall  lay  down 
these  following.  First,  when  the  same  reason  of  the  command 
continues  still,  then  we  cannot  conceive  how  that  which  was 
instituted  upon  such  an  account  as  remains  still,  should  not 
have  the  same  force  now  which  it  had  at  first.  That  positive 
law  under  which  Adam  was  in  his  state  of  innocency  touch- 
ing the  forbidden  fruit,  did  not  bind  any  longer  than  his  fall; 
because  the  reason  of  the  command  ceased,  which  was  the 
trial  of  man's  obedience:  for  which,  God  made  choice  of  a  very 
easy  command,  according  to  that  rule  of  politicians  In  mi- 
nimis obedientias  periculum  faciunt  legislatores  in  matters 

1  Gal.  iii.  24. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  49 

of  small  moment,  legislators  make  trial  of  men's  obedience,"  of 
which  they  give  this  rational  account,  legislators  binding  to  obe- 
dience is  to  be  regarded  rather  than  the  reason  of  the  duty  con- 
cerning which  the  law  is  made.'  Thence  arose  that  law  of  the 
Ephort  at  Sparta,  barbam  tondere,  to  shave  off  the  beard, 
to  which  no  other  reason  was  annexed  but  this,  obtempe- 
rcire  legibus,  "  to  obey  the  laws."  This  was  God's  aim  in 
that  easy  command  given  to  Adam,  to  make  thereon  an  expe- 
riment of  man's  willingness  to  obey  his  Maker,  and  wherein 
man  soon  lost  that  obseqiiii  gloria,  "the  glory  of  obedience," 
as  he  in  Tacitus  calls  it,  which,  as  Pliny  saith,  is  in  eo  major 
quod  quis  minus  velit.  "  The  crime  was  so  much  the  greater 
as  he  willed  the  obligation  to  be  the  less."  But  had  this  law 
been  a  standing  one  for  all  mankind,  it  would  have  continued 
its  obligation  still;  but  we  see  that  it  was  only  a  personal, tem- 
porary, probative  precept;  for  no  sooner  was  man  fallen  but  its 
obligation  ceased.  So  likewise  those  precepts  of  the  judicial 
law  which  immediately  respected  the  commonwealth  of  the 
Jews  as  such,  their  obligation  reacheth  not  to  Christians  at  all, 
nor  (as  it  is  generally  conceived),  to  the  Jews  themselves, 
when  out  of  the  confines  of  their  own  country,  because  the 
reason  of  those  laws  doth  neither  descend  to  Christians,  nor 
did  travel  abroad  with  the  Jews.  But  those  judicial  laws 
which  are  founded  upon  common  equity  do  bind  still,  not  by 
virtue  of  that  sanction,  but  by  virtue  of  common  principles  of 
equity,  which  certainly  in  the  present  shortness  of  human 
reason  cannot  be  fetched  from  a  clearer  fountain  then  those 
laws  which  once  came  from  the  fountain  of  goodness:  none  of 
whose  constitutions  can  anyways  be  supposed  to  deviate  from 
the  most  exact  rules  of  justice  and  equity.  And  upon  this 
very  ground  too,  some  part  of  the  fourth  commandment  is 
abrogated,  and  the  other  continues  to  bind  still;  for  the  reason 
of  the  ceremonial  and  occasional  part  is  ceased,  and  the  reason 
of  what  was  moral,  continues.  Therefore  the  schoolmen  say 
right  of  the  sabbath  day,  Cultus  est  a  naturd,  m,odus  a  lege, 
virtus  ii  Gratid,  "its  observance  is  from  nature,  the  manner 
from  law,  the  virtue  from  grace."  Nature  dictates  that  God 
should  be  worshipped,  the  law  informs  what  day  and  time  to 
spend  in  his  worship,  grace  must  enable  us  to  perform 
that  worship  on  that  day  in  a  right  manner.  And  because 
the  same   reason  for   God's  worship  continues  still,   there- 

'  Quia  Icgislatoris  ad  obcdientiam  obligantis  polius  habenda  est  ratio,  quim 
rei  dc  qua  lex  est  lata. 
7 


50  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

fore  it  is  a  precept  of  the  natural  law,  that  God  should  be 
worshipped.  What  time  must  be  spent  in  God's  worship,  (as 
one  day  in  seven)  though  the  reason  be  evident  from  the  nature 
of  it  when  it  is  made  known;  yet  it  is  hard  to  conceive  that 
nature  could  have  found  out  the  precise  determination  of  the 
time.  Although  I  must  confess  the  general  consent  of  nations, 
as  to  the  seventh  part,  would  speak  fair  to  be  the  voice  of 
nature,  or  at  least  a  tradition  received  from  the  sons  of  Noah, 
which,  if  so,  will  be  an  evidence  of  the  observation  of  the 
sabbath  before  the  children  of  Israel's  being  in  the  wilderness. 
But  granting  that  the  seventh  part  of  the  time  was  a  positive 
law  of  God,  yet  I  say  it  binds  immutably,  because  there  is  as 
strong  a  reason  for  it  now  as  ever,  and  Ratio  iTnmutahilis 
praicepti,facit prsscephim  immutabile.  "  The  reason  of  a  pre- 
cept being  immutable,  makes  the  precept  immutable."  This 
I  take  to  be  the  sense  of  those  who  distinguish  between  morale 
positivum,  the  moral  absolute,  and  morale  naturale,  the  moral 
natural,  i.  e.  that  some  things  are  so  moral,  that  even  nature 
itself  can  discover  them,  as  that  God  should  be  worshipped. 
Other  things  are  so  moral,  that  though  the  reason  of  them  be 
founded  in  nature, yet  there  wants  divine  revelation  to  discover 
them  to  us;  but  when  once  discovered,  are  discerned  to  be  very 
agreeable  to  common  principles  of  reason:  And  these  when  thus 
discovered,  are  as  immutably  obligatory  as  the  other,  because 
the  reason  of  them  is  immutable.  And  of  this  nature  is  the  de- 
termination of  the  particular  time  for  God's  worship,  and  limi- 
tation of  it  to  one  day  in  seven.  But  what  was  in  that  precept 
merely  occasional,  as  the  first  and  original  ground  of  its  limi- 
tation to  the  seventh  in  order,  God^s  resting  on  that  day  from 
the  ivork  of  creation,  and  the  further  ground  of  its  enforce- 
ment to  the  Jews,  viz.  their  deliverance  out  of  Egypt, ^  being 
not  immutable,  but  temporary  and  occasional,  may  upon 
as  great  ground  given,  and  approved  of  God  for  that  end 
(as  is  evident  by  the  apostles'  practice)  be  sufficient  reason  of 
the  alteration  of  the  seventh  day  to  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
By  this  may  briefly  be  seen  how  irrationally  those  speak,  who 
say  we  have  no  further  ground  for  our  observation  of  the 
Lord's  day  now,  than  for  other  arbitrary  festivals  in  the 
church,  viz..  The  tradition  of  the  church  of  God.  I  grant,  the 
tradition  of  the  church  doth  acquaint  us  with  apostolical  prac- 
tice, but  the  ground  of  our  observation  of  the  Lord's  day, 
is  not  the  church's  tradition,  but  that  apostolical  practice  con- 

I  Gen.  ii.  2.     Deut.  v,  15. 


FORMS  OP  CHtTRCH  GOVERNMENT.  51 

veyed  by  universal  tradition  (which  setting  aside  the  festivals 
observed  upon  the  Lord's  days,  can  very  hardly  be  found  for 
any  other).      But  supposing  universal  tradition  for  other 
festivals;  I  say,  here  tradition  is  not  only  used  as  a  testimony 
and  instrument  of  conveyance,  as  in  the  other  case  of  the 
Lord's  day;  but  is  itself  the  only  argument,  and  the  very 
ground  of  the   original    observance.     Between   which  two 
what  a  wide  difference  there  is,  let  any  rational  man  judge. 
But  for  a  further  clearing  this  observation,  we  must  consider, 
that  the  reason  of  the  command,  which  we  say  is  the  measure 
of  its  obligation,  must  not  be  fetched  from  men's  uncertain 
conjectures  (among  whom  dreams  often  pass  for  reasons),  but 
it  must  be  either  expressed  in  the  law  itself,  or  deducible  by 
apparent  and  easy  inference  from  it;  as  is  plain  in  the  decrees 
of  the  apostles  about  things  strangled,  and  offered  to  idols^ 
where  the  reason  of  the  command  is  plainly  implied,  to  wit, 
for  present  compliance  with  the  Jews;  and  therefore  no  sooner 
did  the  reason  of  the  command  cease,  but  the  obligation  of  it 
ceased  too:  but  of  this  more  afterwards.   This  is  one  way  then 
to  discern  the  difference  between  positive  laws,  as  to  the  obli- 
gation of  them,  by  the  ground  and  reason  of  the  command. 
And  therefore  it  is  well  observed  by  divines,  (which  further 
confirms  what  I  now  prove,)  that  no  command  doth  bind 
against  the  reason  of  the  command;  because  it  is  not  the 
words,  but  the  sense  and  reason  of  a  command  which  hath 
the  greatest  obligatory  force.     Therefore  Tiilly'^  tells  us,  that 
the  ratio  juris  et  legislatoris  consilium,,  "the  reason  of  the 
law  and  the  design  of  the  legislator,"  is  the  best  interpreter  of 
any  law;  who  excellently  and  largely  proves,  that  the  reason 
of  the  law  is  the  law,  and  not  the  words.     So  much  for  the 
first  rule. 

§  7.  Secondly,  another  way  to  know  when  positive  laws  are 
immutable,  is,  when  God's  will  is  expressly  declared  that  such 
laws  shall  bind  immutably.  For,  it  being  granted  on  all 
hands,  that  God  may  bind  us  to  those  things  which  are  left 
indifierent  by  the  law  of  nature,  and  likewise  for  what  term 
he  please;  the  only  inquiry  left,  is  to  see  in  his  word  whether 
he  hath  so  bound  us  or  not;  and,  if  he  hath,  whether  he  hath 
left  it  in  man's  power  to  revoke  his  laws.  For  as  to  positive 
laws,  expressly  laid  down  in  Scripture,  the  ground  of  which 
is  only  as  the  Jews  speak  "jSn  ni'iJ  "  the  will  of  the  King,'^  i.  e. 
God's  own  pleasure,  without  any  reason  or  occasion  of  it  else 

'  Acts  .XV.  29.  2  Ora.  Ccelia. 


52  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

expressed,  or  necessarily  implied;  these  do  bind  immutably, 
unless  the  same  power  which  commanded  them,  doth  again 
revoke  them.  For  we  cannot  in  any  wise  conceive  that  the 
wise  God  should,  after  declaring  his  own  will,  leave  it  in  the 
power  of  any  corrupt  fallible  being  to  determine,  or  dispense 
with  the  obligation  of  his  own  laws.  Which  to  do,  and  in- 
stead of  them  to  enforce  others  immediately  upon  the  con- 
sciences of  men,  as  standing  laws,  is  an  attempt  beyond  that 
of  the  giants  against  heaven,  (or  the  men  at  Babel,)  that  being 
only  an  affectation  of  reaching  heaven,  but  this  an  actual 
usurpation  of  God's  supreme  and  legislative  power  and^ 
authority.  But  though  man  hath  not,  God  always  reserves 
to  himself  a  power  to  relax,  interpret,  and  dispense  with  his 
own  positive  laws,  which  imply  no  repugnancy  to  his  own 
nature.  And  this  power  is  always  to  be  understood  in  all 
laws  to  be  reserved  to  God,  where  he  hath  not  himself 
declared  that  he  will  not  use  it;  which  is  done  either  by  the 
annexing  an  oath  or  a  promise,  which  the  apostle  calls  the 
tivo  immutable  things  in  ivhich  it  is  impossible  for  God  to 
lie.  For  though  God  be  free  to  promise,  yet  when  he  hath 
promised,  his  own  nature  and  faithfulness  bind  him  to  per- 
form; in  which  sense  I  understand  those  who  say,  God  in 
making  promises  is  bound  only  to  himself,  and  not  to  men; 
that  is,  that  the  ground  of  peribrmance  ariseth  from  God's 
faithfulness.  For  else,  if  we  respect  the  right  coming  by  the 
promise,  that  must  immediately  respect  the  person  to  whom 
it  is  made,  and  in  respect  of  which  we  commonly  say  that  the 
promiser  is  bound  to  performance.  But  the  case  is  otherwise 
in  penal  laws,  which,  though  never  so  strict,  do  imply  a  power 
of  relaxation  in  the  legislator:  because  penal  laws  do  only 
constitute  the  dehiiuni  poense,  the  debt  of  punishment,  and 
bind  the  sinner  over  to  punishment,  but  do  not  bind  the  legis- 
lator to  an  actual  execution  upon  the  debt.  Which  is  the 
ground  that  the  person  of  a  mediator  was  admissible  in  the 
place  of  fallen  man,  because  it  was  a  penal  law,  and  therefore 
relaxable.  But  since  the  debt  of  punishment  is  immediately 
contracted  upon  the  breach  of  the  law,  therefore  satisfaction 
v/as  necessary  to  God  as  lawgiver,  either  by  the  person  him- 
self, or  another  for  him;  because  it  was  not  consistent  with  the 
holiness  of  God's  nature,  and  his  wisdom  as  Governor,  to  relax 
an  established  law,  without  valuable  consideration.  Now  for 
the  third  kind  of  God's  laws,  besides  promissory  and  penal, 
viz.  such  as  are  merely  positive  respecting  duties,  which  be- 
come such  by  virtue  of  an  express  command:  these,  though 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  53 

they  be  revocable  in  themselves,  yet  being  revocable  only  by 
God  liimself,  and  his  own  power,  since  he  liatli  already  in  his 
word  fully  revealed  iiis  will,  unless  therein  lie  hath  declared 
when  their  obligation  shall  cease,  they  continue  irreversible. 
This  is  the  case  as  to  the  sacraments  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  being  commands  merely  positive,  yet  Christ  connnand- 
ing  Christians  as  Christians  to  observe  them,  and  not  as  Chris- 
tians of  tlie  first  and  second  ages  of  the  cinirch;  his  mind  can 
be  no  otherwise  interpreted  concerning  them,  than  tliat  he  did 
intend  immutably  to  bind  all  Christians  to  the  observance  of 
them.  For,  although  the  Socinians^  say  that  baptism  was 
only  a  rite  instituted  by  Christ  for  the  passing  men  from 
Judaism  and  Gentilism  to  Christianity,  yet  we  are  not  bound 
to  look  upon  all  as  reason  that  conies  from  those  who  profess 
themselves  the  admirers  of  it.  For  Christ's  command  no- 
where implying  such  a  limitation;  and  an  outward  visible 
prolession  of  Christianity  being  a  duty  now,  and  the  cove- 
nant entered  into  by  that  rite  of  initiation,  as  obligatory  as 
ever,  we  have  no  reason  to  think  that  Christ's  command  doth 
not  reach  us  now,  especially  the  promise  being  made  to  as 
many  as  God  shall  call,^  and  consequently  the  same  duty  re- 
quired which  was  then  in  order  to  the  obtaining  of  the  same 
ends.  A  third  way  to  discern  the  immutability  of  positive 
laws,  is,  when  the  things  commanded  in  particular  are  neces- 
sary to  the  being,  succession,  and  contiiuiance  of  such  a  society 
of  men  professing  the  gospel,  as  is  instituted  and  approved  by 
Christ  himself.  For  Christ  must  be  supposed  to  have  the 
power  himself  to  order  what  society  he  please,  and  appoint 
what  orders  he  please  to  be  observed  by  them;  what  rites  and 
ceremonies  to  be  used  in  admission  of  members  into  his  churcli, 
in  their  continuing  in  it,  in  the  way,  means,  manner  of  ejec- 
tion out  of  it;  in  the  preserving  the  succession  of  his  church, 
and  tlie  administration  of  ordinances  of  his  appointment. 
These  being  thus  necessary  for  the  maintaining  and  upholding 
this  society,  they  are  thereby  of  a  nature  as  unalterable,  as  the 
duty  of  observing  what  Christ  hath  commanded  is.  How  much 
these  things  concern  the  resolution  of  the  question  proposed, 
will  appear  afterwards.  Thus  we  have  gained  a  resolution  of 
the  second  thing,  whereon  an  unalterable  divine  right  is 
founded;  viz.  either  upon  the  dictates  of  the  law  of  nature, 
concurring  with  the  rules  of  the  written  word;  or  upon  ex- 
press positive  laws  of  God,  whose  reason  is  immutable,  or 

'  Catcch.  Racov.  cap.  4.  -  Acts  ii.  39. 


54  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

which  God  hath  declared  shall  continue,  as  necessary  to  the 
being  of  the  church. 

§  8.  The  next  thing  is  to  examine  the  other  pretences  which 
are  brought  for  a  divine  right;  which  are  either  Scripture  ex- 
amples.^ or  divine  acts,  or  divine  approbation.  For  Scripture 
exarnples:  first,  I  take  it  for  granted  on  all  hands,  that  all  Scrip- 
ture examples  do  not  bind  us  to  follow  them;  such  are  the  me- 
diatory acts  of  Christ,  the  heroical  acts  of  extraordinary  persons, 
all  accidental  and  occasional  actions.  Example  doth  not  bind 
us  as  an  example;  for  then  all  examples  are  to  be  followed,  and 
so  we  shall  of  necessity  go,  qua  itur,  non  quit  eundiim, 
"  walk  by  the  most  examples,  and  not  by  rule."  There  is 
then  no  obligatory  force  in  example  itself.  Secondly,  there 
must  be  then  some  rule  fixed  to  know  when  examples  bind, 
and  when  not;  for  otherwise  there  can  be  no  discrimination 
put  between  examples  which  we  are  to  follow,  and  which  to 
avoid.  This  rule  must  be  either  immediately  obligatory, 
making  it  a  duty  to  follow  such  examples,  or  else  directive, 
declaring  what  examples  are  to  be  followed:  and  yet  even 
this  latter  doth  imply,  as  well  as  the  former,  that  the  following 
these  examples  thus  declared,  is  become  a  duty.  There  can 
be  no  duty  without  a  law  making  it  to  be  a  duty,  and  con- 
sequently, it  is  the  law  making  it  to  be  a  duty  to  follow  such 
example,  which  gives  a  divine  right  to  those  examples,  and 
not  barely  the  examples  themselves.  We  are  bound  to  fol- 
low Christ's  example,  not  barely  because  he  did  such  and 
such  things,  (for  many  things  he  did  we  are  not  bound  to  fol- 
low him  in,)  but  because  he  himself  hath  by  a  command  made 
it  our  duty  to  follow  him  in  his  humility,  patience,  self-denial, 
&c.  and  in  whatever  things  are  set  out  m  Scripture  for  our 
imitation.^  When  men  speak  then  with  so  much  confidence, 
that  scripture  examples  do  bind  us  unalterably,  they  either 
mean  that  the  example  itself  makes  it  a  duty,  which  I  have 
shown  already  to  be  absurd;  or  else  that  the  moral  nature  of  the 
action  done  in  that  example,  or  else  the  law  making  it  our 
duty  to  follow  the  example,  though  in  itself  it  be  of  no  moral 
nature.  If  the /ormer  of  these  two,  then  it  is  the  morality  of 
the  action  binds  us,  without  its  being  incarnate  in  the  ex- 
ample: for  the  example  in  actions  not  moral,  binds  not  at  all, 
and  therefore  the  example  binds  only  by  virtue  of  the  morality 
of  it;  and  consequently,  it  is  the  morality  of  the  action  which 
binds,  and  not  the  example.     If  the  latter,  the  rule  making 

'Matth.  xi,  31.     IJohii  ii.  6,     1  Pet.  ii.  23. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  55 

it  our  duty,  then  it  is  more  apparent  that  it  is  not  the  example 
which  binds  necessarily,  but  that  rule  which  makes  it  a  duty 
to  follow  it;  for  examples  in  indifferent  things  do  not  bind 
without  a  law  making  it  to  be  a  duty:  and  so  it  evidently  ap- 
pears, that  all  obligatory  force  is  taken  off  from  the  examples 
themselves,  and  resolved  into  one  of  the  two  former,  the 
moral  nature  of  the  action,  or  a  positive  law.     And  therefore 
those  who  plead  the  obligatory  nature  of  scripture  examples, 
must  either  produce  the  moral  nature  of  these  examples,  or 
else  a  rule  binding  us  to   follow  them.     Especially,  when 
these  examples  are  brought  to  found  a  new  positive  law, 
obliging  all  Christians  necessarily  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
Concerning  the  binding  nature  of  apostolical  practice,  I  shall 
discourse  largely  afterwards.     The  next  thing  pleaded  for  a 
divine  right,  is  by  divine  acts.     As  to  this,  it  is  again  evident 
that  all  divine  acts  do  not  constitute  such  a  right;  therefore 
there  must  be  something  expressed  in  those  acts  when  such  a 
divine  right  follows  them;  whence  we  may  infallibly  gather, 
it  was  God's  intention  they  should  perpetually  oblige:  as  is 
plain  in  the  cases  instanced  in  the  most  for  this  purpose;  as 
God's  resting  on  the  seventh  day  making  the  sabbath  per- 
petual:^  for  it  was  not  God's  resting  that  made  it  the  sabbath, 
for  that  is  only  expressed  as  the  occasion  of  its  institution;  but 
it  was  God's  sanctifying  the  day,  that  is,  by  a  law  setting  it 
apart  for  his  own  service,  which  made  it  a  duty.     And  so 
Christ's  resurrection  was  not  it  which  made  the  Lord's  day  a 
sabbath  of  divine  right;  but  Christ's  resurrection  was  the  oc- 
casion of  the  apostles  altering  only  a  circumstantial  part  of  a 
moral  duty  already;  which  being  done  upon  so  great  reasons, 
and  by  persons  indued  with  an  infallible  spirit,  thereby  it  be- 
comes our  duty  to  observe  that  moral  command  in  this  limi- 
tation of  time.     But  here  it  is  further  necessary  to  distinguish 
between  acts  m&xe\Y positive^  and  acts  donative  or  legal.    The 
former  confer  no  right  at  all,  but  the  latter  do;  not  barely  as 
acts,  but  as  legal  acts,  that  is,  by  some  declaration  that  those 
acts  do  confer  right.     And  so  it  is  in  all  donations,  and  there- 
fore in  law,  the  bare  delivery  of  a  thing  to  another  doth  not 
give  a  legal  title  to  it,  without  express  transferring  of  domi- 
nion and  propriety  with  it.     Thus  in  Christ's  delivering  the 
keys  to  Peter  and  the  rest  of  the  apostles,2by  that  act  I  grant 
the  apostles  had  the  power  of  the  keys  by  divine  right;  but 
then  it  was  not  any  bare  act  of  Christ  which  did  it,  but  it  was 

'  Gen.  ii.  2.  2  Matth.  xvi.  19;  xviii.  18. 


56  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

only  the  declaration  of  Christ's  will  conferring  that  authority 
upon  them.     Again,  we  must  distinguish  between  a  right 
conferred  by  a  donative  act,  and  the  unalterable  nature  of 
that  right;  for  it  is  plain  there  may  be  a  x\^\.  personal  as  well 
as  successive,  derivative,  and  perpetual.     And  therefore  it  is 
not  enough  to  prove   that  a  right  was  given  by  any  act  of 
Christ,  unless  it  be  made  appear  it  was  Christ's  intention  that 
right  should  be  perpetual,  if  it  oblige  still.    For  otherwise  the 
extent  of  the  apostolic  commission,  the  power  of  ivorking 
miracles,  as  well  as  the  power  of  the  keys  (whether  by  it  we 
mean  a  power  declarative  of  duty,  or  a  power  authoritative 
and  penal),  must  continue  still,  if  a  difference  be  not  made  be- 
tween these  two;  and  some  rule  found  out  to  know  when  the 
right  conferred  by  divine  acts  is  personal,  when  successive. 
Which  rule  thus  found  out,  must  make  the  right  unalterable, 
and  so  concerning  us;  and  not  the  bare  donative  act  of  Christ: 
for  it  is  evident,  they  were  all  equally  conferred  upon  the 
apostles  by  an  act  of  Christ:  and  if  some  continue  still,  and 
others  do  not,  then  the  bare  act  of  Christ  doth  not  make  an 
unalterable  divine  right.     And  so  though  it  be  proved  that 
the  apostles  had  superiority  of  order  and  jurisdiction  over  the 
pastors  of  the  church  by  an  act  of  Christ;  yet  it  must  further 
be  proved,  that  it  was  Christ's  intention  that  superiority  should 
continue  in  their  successors,  or  it  makes  nothing  to  the  pur- 
pose.    But  this  argument  I  confess,  I  see  not  how  those  who 
make  a  necessary  divine  right  to  follow  upon  the  acts  of 
Christ,  can  possibly  avoid  the  force  of    The  last  thing  pleaded 
for  divine  right,  is  divine  approbation;  but  this  least  of  all 
constitutes  a  divine  right:  for  if  the  actions  be  extraordinary, 
God's  approbation  of  them  as  such,  cannot  make  them  an  or- 
dinary duty.     In  all  other  actions  which  are  good,  and  there- 
fore only  commendable,  they  must  be  so,  either  because  done 
in  conformity  to  God's  revealed  will,  or  to  the  nature  of  things 
good  in  themselves.    In  the  one,  it  is  the  positive  law  of  God, 
in  the  other  the  law  of  nature,  which  made  the  action  good, 
and  so'  approved  by  God,  and  on  that  account  we  are  bound 
to  do  it.     For  God  will  certainly  approve  of  nothing  but 
what  is  done  according  to  his  will  revealed,  or  natural;  which 
will  and  law  of  his,  is  that  which  makes  anything  to  be  of 
divine  right,  i.  e.  perpetually  binding,  as  to  the  observation  of 
it.     But  for  acts  of  merely  positive  nature,  which  we  read 
God's  approbation  of  in  Scripture,  by  virtue  of  which  appro- 
bation those  actions  do  oblige  us;  in  this  case,  I  say,  it  is  not 
God's  mere  approbation  that  makes  the  obligation,  but  as 


FORMS  OF  CIlUllCII   tiOVKUNMENT.  57 

that  approbation,  so  recorded  in  Scripture,  is  a  sutneient  testi- 
mony and  declaration  of  God's  intention  to  oblige  men:  and 
so  it  conies  to  be  a  positive  law,  which  is  nothing  else  but  a 
sulficient  declaration  of  the  legislator's  will  and  intention,  to 
bind  in  particular  actions  and  cases.  Thus  now  we  have 
cleared  whereon  a  necesstiry  and  unalterable  divine  right 
nuist  be  founded;  either  upon  the  law  of  nature,  or  some  posi- 
tive law  of  God,  sufficiently  declared  to  be  perpetually  bind- 
ing. 


58  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 


CHAPTER   II. 

Six  Hypotheses  laid  down,  as  the  basis  of  the  foliowinsf  Discourse.  1.  The  irre- 
versible obligation  of  the  Law  of  Nature,  either  by  human,  or  Divine  positive 
Laws,  in  things  immediately  flowing  from  it.  2.  Things  agreeable  to  the 
Law  of  Nature  may  be  lawfully  practised  in  the  Church  of  God,  where  there 
is  no  prohibition  by  positive  Laws;  enlarged  into  five  subservient  propositions. 
3.  Divine  positive  Laws,  concerning  the  manner  of  the  thing  whose  substance 
is  determined  by  the  Law  of  Nature,  must  be  obeyed  by  virtue  of  the  obliga- 
tion of  the  natural  Law.  4.  Things  undetermined,  both  by  the  natural  and 
positive  Laws  of  God,  may  be  lawfully  determined  by  the  supreme  authority 
in  the  Church  of  God.  5.  What  is  then  determined  by  lawful  authority,  doth 
bind  the  consciences  of  men,  subject  to  that  authority — to  obedience  to  those 
determinations.  6.  Things  thus  determined  by  lawful  authority,  are  not 
thereby  made  unalterable,  but  may  be  revoked,  limited,  and  changed  by  the 
same  authority. 

§  1.  Having  showed  what  a  divine  right  is,  and  whereon 
it  is  founded;  our  next  great  inquiry  will  be,  how  far  church 
government  is  founded  upon  divine  right,  taken  either  of 
these  two  ways.  But  for  our  more  distinct,  clear,  and  rational 
proceeding,  I  shall  lay  down  some  things,  as  so  many  postu- 
lata  or  general  principles  and  hypotheses,  which  will  be  as 
the  basis  and  foundation  of  the  following  discourse;  which  all 
of  them  concern  the  obligation  of  laws,  wherein  I  shall  pro- 
ceed gradually,  beginning  with  the  law  of  nature,  and  so  to 
divine  positive  laws;  and  lastly,  to  speak  to  human  positive 
laws.     The  first  principle  or  hypothesis  which  I  lay  down,  is, 

I.  That  where  the  Law  of  Nature  doth  determine  any- 
thing by  way  of  duty  ^  as  flowing  from  the  principles  of  it, 
there  no  positive  law  can  be  supposed  to  take  off  the  obliga- 
tion of  it.  Which  I  prove,  both  as  to  human  positive  laws 
and  Divine:  first  as  to  human.  For  first,  the  things  com- 
manded in  the  law  of  nature,  being  just  and  righteous  in 
themselves,  there  can  be  no  obligatory  law  made  against  such 
things.  Nemo  tenetur  ad  impossibile,  "No  one  is  bound  to  do 
an  impossibility,"  is  true  in  the  sense  of  the  civil  law,  as  well 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  59 

as  in  philosophy;  as  impossibile  is  taken  for  turpe,  "shame- 
ful," and  turpe  for  that  which  is  contrary  to  the  dictates  of 
nature.  A  man  njay  be  as  well  bound  not  to  be  a  man,  as 
not  to  act  according  to  principles  of  reason:  for  the  law  of 
nature  is  nothing  else  but  the  dictate  of  right  reason,  dis- 
covering the  good  or  evil  of  particular  actions,  from  their  con- 
formity or  repugnancy  to  natural  light.^  Whatever  positive 
law  is  then  made  directly  infringing  and  violating  natural 
principles,  is  thereby  of  no  force  at  all.  'And  that  which  hath 
no  obligation  in  itself,  cannot  dissolve  a  former  obligation. 
Secondly,  the  indispensableness  of  the  obligation  of  the  law 
of  nature,  appears  from  the  end  of  all  other  laws,  which  are 
agreed  upon  by  mutual  compact,  which  is,  the  better  to  pre- 
serve men  in  their  rights  and  privileges.  Now  the  greatest 
rights  of  men,  are  such  as  flow  from  nature  itself,  and  there- 
fore, as  no  law  binds  against  the  reason  of  it,  so  neither  can  it 
against  the  common  end  of  laws.  Therefore,  if  a  human 
positive  law  should  be  made,  that  God  should  not  be  wor- 
shipped, it  cannot  bind,  being  against  the  main  end  of  laws, 
which  is  to  make  men  live  together  as  reasonable  creatures, 
which  they  cannot  do,  without  doing  what  nature  requires, 
which  is,  to  serve  God  who  made  it.  Again,  it  overturns  the 
very  foundation  of  all  government,  and  dissolves  the  tie  to  all 
human  laws,  if  the  law  of  nature  doth  not  bind  indispens- 
ably: for  otherwise,  upon  what  ground  must  men  yield  obe- 
dience to  any  laws  thai  are  made?  Is  it  not  by  virtue  of  this 
law  of  nature,  that  men  must  stand  to  all  compacts  and 
agreements  made?  If  laws  take  their  force  among  men  from 
hence,  they  can  bind  no  further  than  those  compacts  did  ex- 
tend; which  cannot  be  supposed  to  be,  to  violate  and  destroy 
their  own  natures.  Positive  laws  may  restrain  much  of  what 
is  only  of  the  permissive  law  of  nature  (for  the  intent  of 
positive  laws,  was  to  make  men  abate  so  much  of  their  natural 
freedom,  as  should  be  judged  necessary  for  the  preservation  of 
human  societies,)  but  against  the  obligatory  law  of  nature, 
as  to  its  precepts,  no  after-law  can  derogate  from  the  obliga- 
tion of  it.  And  therefore  it  is  otherwise  between  the  law  of 
nature  and  positive  laws,  than  between  laws  merely  civil; 
for  as  to  these  the  rule  is,  ihdii posterior  derogat  priori,  "the 
latter  (law)  takes  away  from  the  obligation  of  the  former;" 
but  as  to  natural  laws  and  positive,  prior  derogat  posteriori^ 
"  The  former  takes  away  from  the  latter,"  the  law  of  nature, 

'  Grot,  de  jure  belli,  &c.  lib.  I.  cap.  I.  s.  10. 


60  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

which  is  first,  takes  away  the  obhgatiou  of  a  positive  law,  if 
it  be  contrary  to  it.  As  Jiistelhis^  observes,  it  was  in  the 
primitive  church,  in  reference  to  the  obligation  of  the  canons 
of  tlie  councils,  that  such  as  were  inserted  in  the  Codex  Cano- 
num,  being  of  the  more  ancient  councils,  did  render  the  obU- 
gation  of  later  canons  invalid,  which  were  contrary  to  them, 
unless  it  were  in  matters  of  small  moment.  We  see  then,  that 
supposing  the  law  of  nature  doth  not  continue  obligatory, 
the  obligation  of  all  human  positive  laws  will  fall  with  it,  (as 
the  superstructure  needs  must  when  the  foundation  is  re- 
moved,) for  if  any  other  law  of  nature  may  be  dissolved, 
why  not  that  whereby  men  are  bound  to  stand  to  covenants 
and  contracts  made?  and  if  that  be  dissolved,  how  can  the 
obligation  to  human  laws  remain,  which  is  founded  upon 
that  basis?  And  so  all  civil  societies  are  thereby  overturned. 
Thirdly,  it  appears  from  the  nature  of  that  obligation  which 
follows  the  law  of  nature,  so  that  thereby  no  human  law 
can  bind  against  this;  for  human  laws  bind  only  outward 
human  actions  directly,  and  internal  acts  only  by  virtue  of 
their  necessary  connection  with,  and  influence  upon  outward 
actions,  and  not  otherwise;  but  the  law  of  nature  immedi- 
ately binds  the  soul  and  conscience  of  man:  and  therefore 
obligatio  natiiralis,  and  nexus  conscientise,  "  natural  obliga- 
tion and  the  bond  of  conscience,"  are  made  to  be  the  same  by 
Lessius,  Suarez,  and  others.  For  Lessius-  disputing,  whether 
a  will  made  without  solemnity  of  law,  doth  bind  in  conscience 
or  no?  He  proves  it  doth  by  this  argument,  from  the  opinion 
of  the  lawyers,  that  without  those  solemnities  there  doth  arise 
from  it  a  natural  obligation,  and  the  hseres  ab  Intestato,  "  and 
the  heir  to  an  intestate,"  who  is  the  next  of  kin,  is  bound  to 
make  it  good;  therefore  it  doth  bind  in  conscience.  So  then 
there  ariseth  a  necessary  obligation  upon  conscience,  from  the 
dictates  of  the  law  of  nature,  which  cannot  be  removed  by 
any  positive  law.  For  although  there  lie  no  action  in  the 
civil  law  against  the  breach  of  a  merely  natural  law,  as  in  the 
former  case  of  succession  to  a  will  not  legally  made;  in  cove- 
nants made  without  conditions  expressed,  in  recovery  of  debts 
from  a  person  to  whom  money  was  lent  in  his  pupilage  with- 
out consent  of  his  tutor;  in  these  cases  though  no  action  lie 
against  the  persons,  yet  this  proves  not  that  these  have  no 


'  Praefat.  in  Cod.  Canon.  Eccl.  Afric.  p.  14. 

2  Less,  de  just.  &.  jure,  1.  2,  c.  19,  dub.  3,  n.  12.     Suarez  de  leg.  lib.  2,  cap.  9, 
sect.  6. 


FORMS  OF  CHUKCH  GOVERNMENT.  6.1 

obligation  upon  a  man,  but  only  that  he  is  not  responsible  for 
the  breach  of  moral  honesty  in  them  before  civil  courts.  In 
which  sense  those  lawyers  are  to  be  understood,  which  deny 
the  obligation  of  the  law  of  nature.  But  however  con- 
science binds  the  offender  over  to  answer  at  a  higher  tribunal, 
before  which  all  such  offences  shall  be  punished.  Thus  then 
we  see  no  positive  human  law  can  dispense  with,  or  dissolve 
the  obligation  of  the  law  of  nature.  Much  less,  secondly,  can 
we  suppose  any  positive  divine  law  should.  For  although 
God's  power  be  immense  and  infinite  to  do  what  pleaseth 
him,  yet  we  must  always  suppose  this  power  to  be  conjoined 
with  goodness,  else  it  is  no  divine  power:  and  therefore  posse 
mahim,  non  est  posse,  "  the  power  to  do  evil,  is  not  power," 
i.  e.  it  is  no  power,  but  weakness  to  do  evil;  and  without  this 
posse  malum,  there  can  be  no  alteration  made  in  the  nature 
of  good  and  evil;  which  must  be  supposed,  if  the  obligation  of 
the  natural  law  be  dispensed  with.  Therefore  it  was  well 
said  by  Origen^  when  Celsiis  objected  to  it  as  the  common 
speech  of  the  Christians,  that  with  God  all  things  are  possible; 
that  he  neither  understood  how  it  ivas  spoken,  nor  what  these 
all  things  are,  nor  how  God  could  do  them,:  and  concludes 
with  this  excellent  speech,^  "/^Fe  say,'^  saith  he,  "  that  God 
can  do  all  things,  ivhich  are  reconcilable  ivith  his  Deity, 
goodness,  and  ivisdom.-^  And  after  adds,  "  That  as  it  is  im- 
possible for  honey  to  make  things  bitter,  and  light  to  make 
things  obscure,  so  it  is  for  God  to  do  anything  that  is  un- 
jtcst."^  '■^For  the  power  of  doing  evil  is  directly  contrary  to 
the  Divine  nature,  and  that  Omnipotency  which  is  consistent 
loith  it.''  To  the  same  purpose  he  speaks  elsewhere,"*  «5£i'  (iri 
ftpsrtov  tavta  6  Oso;  6ov%s'tat,,  God  wHls  nothing  Unbecoming 
himself:  and  again/  We  affirm  that  God  cannot  do  evil 
actions:  for  if  he  could,  he  might  as  well  be  no  God.  For  if 
God  should  do  evil,  he  would  be  no  God.  So  then,  though 
God  be  omnipotent,  yet  it  follows  not  that  he  can  therefore 
dissolve  the  obligation  of  the  preceptive  law  of  nature,  or 
change  the  natures  of  good  and  evil.  God  may,  indeed,  alter 
the  properties  of  those  things  from  whence  the  respects  of 

•  Orig.  lib.  3,  C.  Celsum.  p.  154,  ed.  Cont. 

-  Auvarai  yaj  vieA   hfX.a;  wavl*  o  fleoj,  aTTEj   ^wafx.e(XOi  rou  &£0J  Itvctt,  xat  Toy  Ayaflof 
ei»a(  xai  2o90f  uvai  oyjt  E^i^aTai. 

3  EvavTiov  yaf  er«v  avrov  rn  Seotjiti  xat  rn  xaS'  auTtjv  Tratm  SuvetfjiEi,  h  rou  aStxeiv 
Jyva^uif. 

4  C.  Celsum  1.  5,  p.  147. 

s  <t>afA,iv  h  OTi  oy  iumrai  anr)(j^a  o  @o(,  inn  tgcif  o  deo(  ^vvafAiVo;  y,ti  tivai  fleoj:  t(  yaf 
ajyj^fsv  T(  Jjrt  0  Seo;,  ovu  Efi  9£5f. 


62  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

good  and  evil  do  result,  as  in  Mraham' s  offering  Isaac,  the 
Israelites  taking  away  the  JEgyptians'  jewels;  which  God 
may  justly  do  by  virtue  of  his  absolute  dominion;  but  the 
change  here  is  not  in  the  obligation  of  the  law,  but  in  the 
things  themselves.  Murder  would  be  an  intrinsical  evil  still; 
but  that  which  was  done  by  immediate  and  explicit  command 
from  God,  would  have  been  no  murder.  Theft  had  been  a 
sin  still,  but  taking  things  alienated  from  their  properties  by 
God  himself,  was  not  theft.  We  conclude  then,  what  comes 
immediately  from  the  law  of  nature  by  way  of  command 
binds  immutably  and  indispensably.  Which  is  the  first  hypo- 
thesis or  principle  laid  down. 

§  2.  The  second  hypothesis  is,  that  things  which  are  either 
deducible  from  the  law  of  nature,  or  by  the  light  of  nature 
discovered  to  be  very  agreeable  to  it,  may  be  laivfully  prac- 
tised in  the  church  of  God,  if  they  be  not  otherwise  deter- 
mined by  the  positive  laivs  of  God,  or  of  lawful  human 
authority.  We  shall  first  inquire  into  the  nature  of  these 
things,  and  then  show  the  lawfulness  of  doing  them.  For  the 
nature  of  these  things:  we  must  consider  what  things  may  be 
said  to  be  of  the  law  of  nature.  They  may  be  reduced  to 
two  heads,  which  must  be  accurately  distinguished.  They 
are  either  such  things  which  nature  dictates  to  be  done,  or  not 
to  be  done  necessarily  and  immutably;  or  else  such  things  as 
are  judged  to  be  very  agreeable  to  natural  light,  but  are  sub- 
ject to  positive  determinations.  The  former  are  called,  by 
somejw6'  natiirse  obligativum,  the  obligatory  law  of  nature; 
by  others  jus  naturse  proprium,  the  proper  law  of  nature, 
whereby  things  are  made  necessarily  duties  or  sins;  the  latter 
jus  naturse permissivum,  or  reductivum,\d.^  permitted  by  or 
reducible  to  nature,  for  which  it  is  sufficient  if  there  be  no  re- 
pugnancy to  natural  light.  From  these  two  arise  a  different 
obligation  upon  men;  either  strict,  and  is  called  by  Covar- 
ruvias^  obligatio  ex  justitid,  an  obligation  of  duty  and  jus- 
tice; the  other  larger,  obligatio  ex  communi  sequitate,  or  ex 
honestate  morali;  "an  obligation  from  common  equity,  that 
is,  according  to  the  agreeableness  of  things  to  natural  light." 
The  former  I  have  shown  already  to  bind  indispensably,  but 
these  latter  are  subject  to  positive  laws.  For  our  better  un- 
derstanding the  obligation  of  these  (which  is  more  intricate 
than  the  former)  we  shall  consider  men  under  a  double  notion, 
either  in  a  state  of  absolute  liberty,  which  some  call  a  state  of 

'  Covarr.  c.  10.  de  lestamin  11. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  63 

nature;  or  else  in  a  state  wherein  they  have  restrained  their 
own  liberty  by  mutual  compacts,  or  are  determined  by  a 
higher  law.  These  things  premised,  I  lay  down  these  propo- 
sitions. 

1.  In  a  state  of  absolute  liberty^  before  any  positive  laws 
were  superadded  to  the  natural,  whatsoever  ivus  not  neces- 
sarily determined  by  the  obligatory  law  of  nature,  loas 
'wholly  left  to  men'' s  power  to  do  it  or  not,  and  belongs  to  the 
permissive  law  of  nature.  And  thus  all  those  things  which 
are  since  determined  by  positive  laws,  were  in  such  a  sup- 
posed state,  left  to  the  free  choice  of  a  man's  own  will.  Thus 
it  was  in  men's  power  to  join  in  civil  society  with  whom  they 
pleased,  to  recover  things,  or  vindicate  injuries  in  what  way 
they  judged  best,  to  submit  to  what  constitutions  alone  they 
would  themselves,  to  choose  what  form  of  government  among 
them  they  pleased,  to  determine  how  far  they  would  be  bound 
to  any  authority  chosen  by  themselves,  to  lodge  the  legisla- 
tive and  coercive  power  in  what  persons  they  thought  fit,  to 
agree  upon  punishments  answerable  to  the  nature  of  offences. 
And  so  in  all  other  things  not  repugnant  to  the  common  light 
of  reason,  and  the  dictates  of  the  preceptive  part  of  the  law  of 
nature. 

2.  A  state  of  absolute  liberty,  not  agreeing  to  the  nature 
of  man  considered  in  relation  to  others;  it  ivas  in  men's 
power  to  restrain  their  own  liberty  upon  compacts  so  far  as 
should  be  judged  necessary  for  the  ends  of  their  mutual  so- 
ciety. A  state  of  nature  I  look  upon  only  as  an  imaginary 
state,  for  better  understanding  the  nature  and  obligation  of 
laws.  For  it  is  confessed  by  the  greatest  assertors^  of  it,  that 
the  relation  of  parents  and  children  cannot  be  conceived  in  a 
state  of  natural  liberty,  because  children  as  soon  as  born  are 
actually  under  the  power  and  authority  of  their  parents.  But 
for  our  clearer  apprehending  the  matter  in  hand,  we  shall  pro- 
ceed with  it.  Supposing  then  all  those  former  rights  were  in 
then'  own  power,  it  is  most  agreeable  to  natural  reason,  that 
every  man  may  part  with  his  right  so  far  as  he  please  for  his 
own  advantage.  Here  now,  men  finding  a  necessity  to  part 
with  some  of  their  rights,  to  defend  and  secure  their  most  con- 
siderable ones,  they  begin  to  think  of  compacts  one  with  ano- 
ther (taking  this  as  a  principle  of  the  natural  law,  and  the 
foundation  of  society,  that  all  covenants  are  to  be  performed). 
When  they  are  thus  far  agreed,  they  then  consider  the  terms 

'  Hobs  de  Civ.  cap  1,  s.  11,  Ann. 


64  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

upon  which  they  should  enter  into  society  one  with  another. 
And  here  men  divest  themselves  of  their  original  liberty,  and 
agree  upon  an  inclosure  of  properties,  and  the  fences  of  those 
properties;  I  mean,  upon  living  together  in  a  civil  state,  and 
of  tiie  laws  by  which  they  must  be  ruled.  This  is  apparently 
agreeable  to  natural  reason,  the  things  being  in  their  own 
power,  with  which  they  agree  to  part. 

§3.  Prop.  3.  Men  entering  upon  societies  bymutual  com- 
pacts, things  thereby  become  good  and  evil,  ivhich  were  not  so 
before.  Thus  he  who  was  free  before  to  do  what  and  how  he 
pleased,  is  now  bound  to  obey  what  laws  he  hath  consented 
to;  or  else  he  breaks  not  only  a  positive  law,  but  that  law  of 
nature,  which  commands  man  to  stand  to  covenaiUs  once 
made,  though  he  be  free  to  make  them.  And  therefore  it  is 
observable,  that  the  doing  of  things  that  were  lawfnl  before 
covenants  made,  and  things  thereby  determined,  may  be  so 
far  from  being  lawful  after,  that  the  doing  of  them  may  con- 
tradict a  principle  of  the  obligatory  law  of  nature.  Thus  in 
a  state  of  liberty,  every  one  had  right  to  do  what  he  thought 
fit  for  his  use;  but  propriety  and  dominion  being  introduced, 
which  was  a  free  voluntary  act,  by  men's  determining  rights, 
it  now  becomes  an  offence  against  the  law  of  nature,  to  take 
away  that  which  is  another  man's.^  In  which  sense  alone  it 
is,  that  theft  is  said  to  be  forbidden  by  the  law  of  nature. 
And  by  the  same  reason,  he  that  resists  and  opposeth  the  law- 
ful authority,  under  which  he  is  born,  doth  not  only  offend 
against  the  municipal  laws  of  the  place  wherein  he  lives,  but 
against  that  original  and  fundamental  law  of  societies,  viz. 
standing  to  covenants  once  made.  For  it  is  a  gross  mistake, 
as  well  as  dangerous,  for  men  to  imagine,  that  every  man  is 
born  in  a  state  of  absolute  liberty,  to  choose  what  laws  and 
governors  he  please;  but  every  one  being  now  born  a  subject 
to  that  authority  he  lives  under,  he  is  bound  to  preserve  it  as 
much  as  in  him  lies:  thence  Augustus  had  some  reason  to 
say,  he  was  the  best  citizen,  qui  prsesentem  reipubUcx 
statuni  mutari  non  vult,  that  doth  not  disturb  the  present 
state  of  the  commonwealth;  and  who,  as  Jilcibiudes  saith  in 
Thucydides,  o«fg  Ihi^ato  axvf^^  •^'?5  rtoxi-tsias,  Tfovfo  su^si,  endea- 
vours to  preserve  that  form  of  governmeat  he  was  born 
under.^  And  the  reason  of  it  is,  that  in  contracts  and  covenants 
made  for  government,  men  look  not  only  at  themselves,  but 

'  Paulus  1.  I,  D.  de  furtis.     Ulpian.  lib.  Post.  D.  dc  verb  sig. 
i  V.  Grot,  dc  jure  belli,  &c,  lib.  2,  c;ip.  4.  sect.  8. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  65 

at  the  benefit  of  posterity;  if  then  one  party  be  bound  to  main- 
tain the  rights  of  the  other's  posterity,  as  well  as  of  his  person, 
the  other  party  must  be  supposed  to  oblige  his  posterity  in  his 
covenant  to  perform  obedience,  which  every  man  hath  power 
to  do,  because  children  are  at  their  parents'  disposal;  and 
equity  requires,  that  the  covenant  entered  should  be  of  equal 
extent  to  both  parties:  and  if  a  man  doth  expect  protection  for 
his  posterity,  he  must  engage  for  the  obedience  of  his  posterity 
too,  to  the  governors  who  do  legally  protect  them.  But  the 
iurther  consideration  of  these  things  belongs  to  another  place; 
my  purpose  being  to  treat  of  government  in  the  church,  and 
not  in  the  state.  The  sum  of  this  is,  that  the  obligation  to  the 
performance  of  what  things  are  determined,  (which  are  of  the 
permissive  law  of  nature,)  by  positive  laws,  doth  arise  from 
the  obligatory  law  of  nature.  As  the  demonstration  of  the 
particular  problems  in  the  mathematics,  doth  depend  upon 
the  principles  of  the  theorems  themselves;  and  so  whoever 
denies  the  truth  of  the  problem,  deduced  by  just  conse- 
quence from  the  theorem,  must  consequently  deny  the  truth 
of  the  theorem  itself;  so  those  who  violate  the  particular 
determination  of  the  permissive  law  of  nature,  do  violate  the 
obligation  of  the  preceptive  part  of  that  law:  obedience  to  the 
other  being  grounded  on  the  principles  of  this. 

4.  God  hath  power  by  his  positive  laivs  to  take  in  and  de- 
termine as  much  of  the  pertnissive  law  of  nature  as  he 
please,  which  being  once  so  determined  by  an  universallaio, 
is  so  far  from  being  lawful  to  be  done,  that  the  doing  of 
them  by  those  under  an  obligation  to  his  jjositive  laivs,  is  an 
offence  against  the  immutable  law  of  nature.  That  God 
may  restrain  man's  natural  liberty,  I  suppose  none  who  own 
God's  legislative  power  over  the  world  can  deny:  especially 
considering  that  men  have  power  to  restrain  themselves;  much 
more  then  hath  God,  who  is  the  rector  and  governor  of  the 
world.  That  a  breach  of  his  positive  laws  is  an  offence 
against  the  common  law  of  nature,  appears  hence;  because 
man  being  God's  creature,  is  not  only  bound  to  do  what  is  in 
general  suitable  to  the  principles  of  reason  in  fleeing  from  evil, 
and  choosing  good;  but  to  submit  to  the  determinations  of  God's 
will,  as  to  the  distinction  of  good  from  evil.  For  being  bound 
universally  to  obey  God,  it  is  implied  that  man  should  obey 
him  in  all  things  which  he  discovers  to  be  his  will:  whose  de- 
termination must  make  a  thing  not  only  good,  but  necessary 
to  be  done,  by  virtue  of  his  supreme  authority  over  men. 
This  then  needs  no  further  proof,  being  so  clear  in  itself. 
9 


66  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

5.  Lastly^  what  things  are  left  undetermined  by  divine 
positive  laius,  are  in  the  church' s  poiver  to  use,  and  practise 
according  as  itjudgeth  them  most  agreeable  to  the  rule  of 
the  word.  That  things  undetermined  by  the  word  are  still 
lawful,  evidently  appears:  because  what  was  once  lawful, 
must  have  some  positive  law  to  make  it  unlawful,  which  if 
there  be  none,  it  remains  lawful  still.  And  that  the  church 
of  God  should  be  debarred  of  any  privilege  of  any  other 
societies,  I  understand  not;  especially  if  it  belong  to  it  as  a 
society  considered  in  itself,  and  not  as  a  particular  society 
constituted  upon  such  accounts  as  the  church  is.  For  I  doubt 
not  but  to  make  it  evident  afterwards,  that  many  parts  of 
government  in  the  church  belong  not  to  it  as  such  in  a  re- 
strained sense,  but  in  the  general  notion  of  it,  as  a  society  of 
men  embodied  together  by  some  laws  proper  to  itself;  although 
it  subsist  upon  a  higher  foundation,  viz.  of  divme  institution, 
and  upon  higher  grounds,  reasons,  principles,  ends;  and  be 
directed  by  other  laws  immediately  than  any  other  societies 
in  the  world  are. 

§  4.  The  third  hypothesis  is  this;  Where  the  law  of  nature 
determines  the  thing,  and  the  divine  law  determines  the 
manner  and  circumstances  of  the  thing,  there  ive  are  bound 
to  obey  the  divine  law  in  its  particular  determinations,  by 
virtue  of  the  laiv  of  nature  in  its  general  obligation.  As 
for  instance,  the  law  of  nature  bindeth  man  to  worship  God; 
but  for  the  way,  manner,  and  circumstances  of  worship,  we 
are  to  follow  the  positive  laws  of  God:  because  as  we  are 
bound  by  nature  to  worship  him,  so  we  are  bound  by  virtue 
of  the  same  law  to  worship  him  in  the  manner  best  pleasing 
to  himself  For  the  light  of  nature,  though  it  determine  the 
duty  of  worship,  yet  it  doth  not  the  way  and  manner,  and 
though  acts  of  pure  obedience  be  in  themselves  acceptable 
unto  God,  yet  as  to  the  manner  of  those  acts,  and  the  posi- 
tives of  worship,  they  are  no  further  acceptable  unto  God 
than  commanded  by  him.  Because  in  things  not  necessarily 
determined  by  the  law  of  nature,  the  goodness  or  evil  of 
them  lying  in  reference  to  God's  acceptance,  it  must  depend 
upon  his  command,  supposing  positive  laws  to  be  at  all  given 
by  God  to  direct  men  in  their  worship  of  him.  For  supposing 
God  had  not  at  all  revealed  himself  in  order  to  his  worship; 
doubtless  it  had  been  lawful  for  men  not  only  to  pray  to  God, 
and  express  their  sense  of  their  dependence  upon  him,  but  to 
appoint  ways,  times  and  places  for  the  doing  it,  as  they  should 
judge  most  convenient  and  agreeable  to  natural  light.  Which 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  67 

is  evident  from  the  Scripture  itself  as  to  places:  for  as  far  as 
we  can  find,  sacrificing  in  high  places,  (that  is,  such  as  were 
of  men's  own  appointment,)  was  lawful,  till  the  temple  was 
built  by  Solomon;  as  appears  by  the  several  examples  of 
Gideon,  Samuel,  David,^  and  others.     Indeed  after  the  place 
was  settled  by  God's  own  law,  it  became  wholly  sinful:  but 
if  so  before,  we  should  not  have  read  of  God's  accepting  sa- 
crifices in  such  places  as  he  did  Gideori's,  nor  of  the  prophets 
doing  it,  as  Samuel  and  David  did.     It  is  a  disputable  case 
about  sacrifices,  whether  the  offering  of  them  came  only  from 
natural  light,  or  from  some  express  command:  the  latter  seems 
far  more  probable  to  me,  because  I  cannot  see  how  natural 
light  should  anywise  dictate  that  God  would  accept  of  the 
blood  of  other  creatures  as  a  token  of  man's  obedience  to 
himself.     And  Rivet^  gives  this  very  good  reason  why  the 
destruction  of  anything  in  sacrifice  cannot  belong  to  the  law 
of  nature,  because  it  is  only  acceptable  as  a  sign,  and  token 
of  obedience,  and  not  simply  as  an  act  of  obedience;  and 
this  sign  signifying  ex  instituto,  (for  man's  destroying  the  life 
of  a  beast  can  never  naturally  signify  man's  obedience  to 
God,)  and  therefore  it  must  have  some  positive  law;  for  those 
which  signify  only  by  institution,  and  not  naturally,  cannot 
be  referred  to  a  dictate  of  the  law  of  nature.     To  which  pur- 
pose it  is  further  observable,  that  God  doth  so  often  in  Scrip- 
ture slight  the  offering  of  sacrifices,  in  respect  of  any  inherent 
virtue  or  goodness  in  the  action  itself,  or  acceptableness  to 
God  upon  the  account  of  the  thing  done.     In  which  sense 
God  saith,  He  that  killeth  a  bullock,  is  as  if  he  slew  a  man; 
and  he  that  sacrificeth  a  sheep,  as  if  he  cut  off  a  dog^s  neck, 
^'C?    For  what  is  there  more  in  the  one  than  in  the  other,  but 
only  God's  appointment,  which  makes  one  acceptable  and  not 
the  other?     So  that  it  is  no  ways  probable  that  God  would 
have  accepted  AbeVs  sacrifice  rather  than  Cain's,  had  there 
been  no  command  for  their  sacrificing.     For  as  to  mere  natu- 
ral light,  Cain's  sacrifice  seems  more  agreeable  to  that  than 
Abel's;"^  Cain's  being  an  eucharistical  offering  without  hurt 
to  other  creatures,  but  Abel's  was  '■'•cruentum  sacrifcium,"  a 
sacrifice  of  blood.     But  the  chief  ground  of  Abel's  accept- 
ance, was  his  offering  in  faith,  as  the  apostle  to  the  Hebrews 
tells  us.     Now  faith  is  a  higher  principle  than  natural  light,^ 
and  must  suppose  divine  revelation,  and  so  a  divine  command 

'  Judges  vi.  18;  1  Sam.  vii.  1,4;  xvi.9;  x.  3;  2  Sam.  xv.  18,  «&;c. 
2  Exercit.  in  Gen.  xlii.  ^  I.saiuli  xlvi.  3. 

*  Gen.  iv.  3,  4.  '>  Hob.  xi.  4. 


68  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

as  the  principle  and  ground  of  his  action.  Moses^  silence 
in  reference  to  a  command,  is  no  argument  there  was  none, 
it  not  being  his  design  to  write  at  large  all  the  particular  pre- 
cepts of  the  oral  law,  but  to  deduce  the  genealogy  of  the 
patriarchs  down  from  Adam  and  tjie  creation.  But,  sup- 
posing a  command  given  from  God  determining  modes  and 
circumstances  of  such  things  of  which  the  substance  depends 
on  a  natural  law,  men  are  as  well  bound  to  the  observation 
of  them  after  their  revelation,  as  the  other  before.  The  one 
being  a  testimony  of  their  obedience  to  God  as  clear  and  full 
as  the  other;  yes,  and  so  much  the  clearer  evidence  of  obedi- 
ence, in  that  there  could  be  no  argument  for  the  performing 
of  those  things  but  a  divine  command.  And  even  in  doing 
things  intrinsically  good,  the  ground  of  purely  religious  obe- 
dience is,  because  God  commands  men  to  do  those  things 
more  than  that  they  are  good  in  themselves.  Doing  a  thing 
because  most  suitable  to  nature,  speaks  morality;  but  doing 
because  God  commands  it,  speaks  true  religion  and  the  obedi- 
ence of  faith.  For  as  the  formal  reason  of  the  act  of  faith  is 
a  divine  testimony  discovered  to  our  understandings,  so  the 
formal  principle  of  an  act  of  spiritual  obedience  is  a  divine 
command  inclining  the  will,  and  awing  it  to  performance. 
So  far  then  as  divine  law  determines  things,  we  are  bound  to 
observe  them  from  the  dictates  of  the  natural  law. 

§  5.  The  fourth  hypothesis:  Li  things  ivhich  are  deter- 
mined both  by  the  law  of  nature,  and  divine  positive  laws, 
as  to  the  substance  and  morality  of  them,  but  not  deter- 
mined as  to  all  circinnstances  belonging  to  them;  it  is  in 
the  power  of  lawful  authority  in  the  church  of  God  to  deter- 
mine  them,  so  far  as  they  judge  them  tend  to  the  promoting 
the  performance  of  them  in  due  manner.  So  that  not  only 
matters  wholly  left  at  liberty  as  to  the  substance  of  them  are 
subject  to  human  laws  and  constitutions,  but  even  things 
commanded  in  the  divine  law,  in  reference  to  the  manner  of 
performance,  if  undetermined  by  the  same  law,  which  enforce 
the  duty.  Thus  the  setting  apart  some  time  for  God's  wor- 
ship, is  a  dictate  of  the  natural  law:  that  the  first  day  of  the 
week  be  that  time,  is  determined  under  the  gospel;  but  in  what 
places,  at  what  hours,  in  what  order,  decency  and  solemnity 
this  worship  shall  be  then  performed,  are  circumstances  not 
determined  in  Scripture,  but  only  by  general  rules;  as  to  these 
then,  so  they  be  done  in  conformity  to  those  rules,  they  are 
subject  to  human  positive  determinations.  But  this  is  not  an 
hypothesis  in  the  age  we  live  in  to  be  taken  for  granted  with- 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  69 

Gill  proving  it:  some  denying  the  magistrate  any  power  at  all 
in  matters  of  religion;  others  granting  a  defensive,  protective 
power  of  that  religion  which  is  professed  according  to  the 
laws  of  Christ,  but  denying  any  determining  power  in  the 
magistrate  concerning  things  left  undetermined  by  the  Scrip- 
ture, This  hypothesis  then  hath  landed  me  into  a  field  of  con- 
troversy, wherein  I  shall  not  so  much  strive  to  make  my  way 
through  any  opposite  party,  as  endeavour  to  beget  a  right  un- 
derstanding between  the  adverse  parties,  in  order  to  a  mutual 
compliance;  which  I  shall  the  rather  do,  because  if  any  con- 
troversy hath  been  an  increaser  and  fomenter  of  heartburn- 
ings and  divisions  among  us,  it  hath  been  about  the  determi- 
nation of  indifferent  things.  And,  which  seems  strange,  the 
things  men  can  least  bear  with  one  another  in,  are  matters  of 
liberty:  and  those  things  men  have  divided  most  upon,  have 
been  matters  of  iiniformity ^  and  wherein  they  have  differed 
most,  have  been  pretended  things  of  indifference.  In  order 
then,  to  laying  a  foundation  for  peace  and  union,  I  shall 
calmly  debate  what  power  the  magistrate  hath  in  matters  of 
religion,  and  how  far  that  power  doth  extend  in  determining 
things  left  undetermined  by  the  word.  For  the  clear  under- 
standing the  first  of  these,  we  shall  make  our  passage  open  to 
it  by  the  laying  down  several  necessary  distinctions  about  it, 
the  want  of  considering  which  hath  been  the  ground  of  the 
great  confusion  in  the  handling  of  this  controversy.  First, 
then,  we  must  distinguish  between  a  power  respecting  reli- 
gion in  itself,  and  a  power  concerning  religion  as  it  is  the 
public,  oivned  and  professed  religion  of  a  nation.  For 
although  the  magistrate  hath  no  proper  power  over  religion, 
in  itself,  either  taking  it  abstractly  for  the  rule  of  worship,  or 
concretely  for  the  internal  acts  of  worship;  for  he  can  neither 
add  to  that  rule,  nor  dissolve  the  obligation  of  it;  nor  yet  can 
he  force  the  consciences  of  men,  (the  chief  seat  of  religion,)  it 
being  both  contrary  to  the  nature  of  religion  itself,  which  is  a 
matter  of  the  greatest  freedom  and  internal  liberty,  and  it 
being  quite  out  of  the  reach  of  the  magistrate's  laws,  which 
respect  only  external  actions  as  their  proper  object;  for  the 
obligation  of  any  law  can  extend  no  further  than  the  jurisdic- 
tion and  authority  of  the  legislator,  which  among  men  is  only 
to  the  outward  actions.  But  then,  if  we  consider  religion  as 
it  is  publicly  owned  and  professed  by  a  nation,  the  supreme 
magistrate  is  bound  by  virtue  of  his  office  and  authority,  not 
only  to  defend  and  protect  it,  but  to  restrain  men  from  acting 
anything  publicly  tending  to  the  subversion  of  it.    So  that  the 


70  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

plea  for  liberty  of  conscience,  as  it  tends  to  restrain  the  magis- 
trate's power,  is  both  irrational  and  impertinent;  because 
liberty  of  conscience  is  the  liberty  of  men's  judgments,  which 
the  magistrate  cannot  deprive  them  of.  For  men  may  hold 
what  opinions  th^y  will  in  their  minds,  the  law  takes  no 
cognizance  of  them:  but  it  is  the  liberty  of  practice  in  vent- 
ing and  broaching  those  opinions  which  the  magistrate's 
power  extends  to  the  restraint  of  And  he  that  hath  the  care 
of  the  public  good,  may  give  liberty  to,  and  restrain  liberty 
from  men,  as  they  act  in  order  to  the  promoting  of  that  good; 
and  as  a  liberty  of  all  opinions  tends  manifestly  to  the  subvert- 
ing a  nation's  peace,  and  to  the  embroiling  it  into  continual  con- 
fusions, a  magistrate  cannot  discharge  his  office  unless  he  hath 
power  to  restrain  such  a  liberty.  Therefore  we  find  plainly 
in  Scripture  that  God  Imputes  the  increase  and  impunity  of 
idolatry  as  well  as  other  vices,  to  the  want  of  a  lawful  magis- 
tracy. Judges  xvii.  5,  6,  where  the  account  given  of  Micah's 
idolatry  was,  because  there  was  no  king  in  Israel;  which  im- 
plies it  to  be  the  care  and  duty  of  magistrates  to  punish  and 
restrain  whatever  tends  to  the  opposing  and  subverting  the 
true  religion.  Besides,  I  cannot  find  any  reason  pleaded 
against  the  magistrate's  power  now,  which  would  not  have 
held  under  David,  Solomon,  Asa,  Jehosophat,  Hezekias, 
Josias,  or  other  kings  of  the  Jews,  who  asserted  the  public 
profession,  to  the  extirpation  of  what  opposed  it.  For  the 
plea  of  conscience  (taken  for  men's  judgments  going  contrary 
to  what  is  publicly  owned  as  religion)  it  is  indifferently  calcu- 
lated for  all  meridians,  and  will  serve  for  a  religion  of  any 
elevation.  Nay,  stiff  and  contumacious  infidels  or  idolaters 
may  plead  as  highly  (though  not  so  truly)  as  any,  that  it  goes 
against  their  judgments  or  their  conscience  to  own  that  reli- 
gion which  is  established  by  authority.  If  it  be  lawful  then 
to  restrain  such  notwithstanding  this  pretence,  why  not  others, 
whose  doctrine  and  principles  the  magistrate  judgeth  to  tend 
in  their  degree  (though  not  so  highly)  to  the  dishonouring 
God,  and  subverting  the  profession  entertained  in  a  nation? 
For,  a  man's  own  certainty  and  confidence  that  he  is  in  the 
right,  can  have  no  influence  upon  the  magistrate  judging  other- 
wise; only  if  it  be  true,  it  will  afford  him  the  greater  comfort 
and  patience  under  his  restraint;  which  was  the  case  of  the 
primitive  Christians  under  persecutions:  the  magistrate  then 
is  bound  to  defend,  protect,  and  maintain  the  religion  he 
owns  as  true,  and  that  by  virtue  of  his  office,  as  he  is  Custos 
utriusque    tabulx,  "  the    guardian    of  either  table."     The 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  71 

maintainer  of  the  honour  of  God's  laws,  which  cannot  be  if 
he  suffer  those  of  the  first  table  to  be  broken  without  any  no- 
tice taken  of  them.  Were  it  not  for  this  power  of  magistrates 
under  the  gospel,  how  could  that  promise  ever  be  made  good, 
that  kings  shall  be  nursing  father's  to  the  church  of  God^ 
unless  tliey  mean  such  nursing  fathers  as  Jlstyages  was  to 
Cyrus,  or  Jlmulius  to  Romulus  and  Remus,  who  exposed 
their  nurslings  to  the  fury  of  wild  beasts  to  be  devoured  by 
them.  For  so  must  a  magistrate  do  the  church,  unless  he 
secure  it  from  the  incursion  of  heretics,  and  the  inundation  of 
seducers.  But  so  much  for  that  which  is  more  largely  asserted 
and  proved  by  others.  The  magistrate  then  hath  power  con- 
cerning religion,  as  owned  in  a  nation. 

Secondly,  We  must  distinguish  between  an  external  and 
objective  "^ow ex,  about  matters  of  religion;  and  an  internal 
formal  power,  which  some^  call  an  imperative  and  elicitive 
power,  others  a  power  of  order,  and  a  power  of  jurisdiction, 
others  potestas  ecclesiastica,  and  potestas  circa  ecclesiastica, 
"the  ecclesiastic  power,  or  power  relative  to  ecclesiastical 
affairs,"  or  in  the  old  distinction  of  Constantine,  tuv  sx-tb^ 
xat  i-wr  fjco  'tiji  ixx%7]iiai,  "a  powcr  of  things  within  and  with- 
out the  church,"  the  sense  of  all  is  the  same,  though  the 
terms  differ.  The  internal,  formal,  elicitive  power  of  order, 
concerning  things  in  the  church,  lies  in  authoritative  exercise 
of  the  ministerial  function,  in  preaching  the  word,  and  admi- 
nistration of  sacraments;  but  the  external,  objective,  impera- 
tive power  of  jurisdiction,  concerning  the  matters  of  the 
church,  lies  in  a  due  care  and  provision,  for  the  defence,  pro- 
tection, and  propagation  of  religion.  The  former  is  only 
proper  to  the  ministry,  the  latter  to  the  supreme  magistracy; 
for,  though  the  magistrate  hath  so  much  power  about  religion, 
yet  he  is  not  to  usurp  the  ministerial  function,  nor  to  do  any 
proper  acts  belonging  to  it.  To  which  the  instance  of  Uzzias 
is  pertinently  applied.  But  then  this  takes  nothing  off  from 
the  magistrate's  power;  for  it  belongs  not  to  the  magistrate 
imperata  facere,  but  imperare  facienda,  as  Gi^otius^  truly 
observes,  not  to  do  the  things  commanded,  but  to  command 
the  things  to  be  done.  From  this  distinction  we  may  easily 
understand,  and  resolve  that  so  much  vexed  and  intricate 
question,  concerning  the  mutual  subordination  of  the  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  power.     For,  as  Peter  Martyr*  well  ob- 

"  Isa.  xlix.  23.  2  Euseb.  vit.  Constant.  1.  4,  c.  24. 

3  De  Imp.  sum.  potest,  cap.  2,  1.  1.  *  In  Jud.  c.  19. 


70  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

serves,  these  two  powers  are  some  ways  ivtt?^o^a.(,,  '^•'reci- 
procal/' are  conversant  several  ways  about  the  same  thing; 
but  the  functions  of  both  of  them  must  be  distinguished. 
For  the  pastors  of  the  church  are  not  to  administer  justice, 
but  it  is  their  duty  to  declare  how  justice  should  be  rightly 
administered,  without  partiality  or  oppression.  So,  on  the 
other  side,  the  magistrate  must  not  preach  the  gospel,  nor 
administer  sacraments;  but,  however,  must  take  care  that 
these  be  duly  done  by  those  to  whose  function  it  belongs. 
But  for  a  clearer  making  it  appear,  these  things  are  to  be 
considered,  both  in  a  magistrate,  and  minister  of  the  gospel. 
In  a  magistrate  the  poive?'  itself,  and  x\\q,  person  hearing  that 
power.  The  power  itself  of  the  magistrate  is  no  ways  subor- 
dinate to  the  power  of  the  ministry.  Indeed,  if  we  consider 
both  powers,  in  reference  to  their  objects,  and  ends,  there 
may  be  an  inferiority  of  dignity,  as  Chamier  calls  it,  in  the 
civil  power  to  the  other,  considered  abstractly ;  but  consider- 
ing it  concretely,  as  lodged  in  the  persons,  there  is  an  in- 
feriority of  subjection  in  the  ecclesiastical  to  the  civil.  But 
still  the  person  of  the  magistrate,  though  he  is  not  subject  to 
the  power  of  the  ministers,  yet  both  as  a  Christian,  and  as  a 
magistrate,  he  is  subject  to  the  word  of  God,  and  is  to  be 
guided  by  that  in  the  administration  of  his  function.  So  on 
the  other  side,  in  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  there  are  these 
things  considerable;  the  object  of  his  function,  the  function 
itself,  the  liberty  of  exercising  it,  and  the  person  who  doth 
exercise  it.  As  for  the  object  of  this  function,  the  word  and 
sacraments,  these  are  not  subject  to  the  civil  power,  being 
settled  by  a  law  of  Christ;  but  then  for  the  function  itself, 
that  may  be  considered,  either  in  the  derivation  of  it,  or  in 
the  administration  of  it.  As  for  the  derivation  of  the  power 
and  authority  of  the  function,  that  is  from  Christ,  who  hath 
settled  and  provided  by  law,  that  there  shall  be  such  a  stand- 
ing function  to  the  end  of  the  world,  with  such  authority 
belonging  to  it.  But  for  the  administration  of  the  function, 
two  things  belong  to  the  magistrate.  First,  to  provide  and 
lake  care  for  due  administration  of  it;  and  to  see  that  the 
ministers  preach  the  true  doctrine,  though  he  cannot  lawfully 
forbid  the  true  doctrine  to  be  taught;  and  that  they  duly 
administer  the  sacraments,  though  he  cannot  command  them 
to  administer  them  otherwise  than  Christ  hath  delivered  them 
down  to  us.  This  for  due  administration.  Secondly,  in  case 
oi  mal-administration  of  his  function,  or  scandal  rendering 
him  unfit  for  it,  it  is  in  the  magistrate's  power,  if  not  formally 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  73 

to  depose,  yet  to  deprive  them  of  the  Hberty  of  ever  exer- 
cising their  funclioa  within  his  dominions;  as  Solomon  did 
t^hiathar,  and  Justinian  Sylverius,  as  Constantius  did 
Vigihis.  For  the  Uberty  to  exercise  tlie  function  is  in  the 
magistrate's  power,  though  a  right  to  exercise  it  be  derived 
from  the  same  power  from  which  the  authority  belonging  to 
the  function  was  conveyed.  And  then  lastly,  as  to  the  per- 
sons exercisitig  this  function,  it  is  evident,  as  they  are  mem 
hers  of  a  civil  society  as  well  as  others,  so  they  are  subject  to 
the  same  civil  laws  as  others  are.  Which  as  it  is  expressly 
affirmed  by  Chrysostom,^  on  Rom.  xiii.  1.  Let  every  soul  be 
subject  to  the  higher  poivers;  that  is,  saith  he,  xav  and^o^oi  ^ 
xav  cvavysugfji,  xav  dpo^ijttji,  xav  ortow,  '^£e  he  an  apostle,  evan- 
gelist, prophet,  be  he  luho  he  will.^'  So  it  is  fully,  largely, 
irrefragably  proved  by  our  writers  against  the  papists;  espe- 
cially by  the  learned  Is.  Casaubon  in  his  piece  de  libertate 
Ecclesiusticd.  So  then  we  see  what  a  fair,  amicable,  and 
mutual  aspect  these  two  powers  have  one  upon  another, 
when  rightly  understood,  being  far  from  clashing  one  with 
the  other;  either  by  a  subjection  of  the  civil  power  to  the 
ecclesiastical,  or  the  civil  powers  swallowing  up  and  devour- 
ing the  peculiarity  of  the  ministerial  function.  And  upon 
these  grounds,  I  suppose,  Beza  and  Erastus  may,  as  to  this, 
shake  hands;  so  that  the  magistrate  do  not  usurp  the  minis- 
terial function,  which  Videlius'^  qq\\s papains  politicns,  "the 
political  papacy;"  nor  the  ministers  subject  the  civil  power 
to  them,  which  is  papains  ecclesiasticus,  "the  ecclesiastical 
papacy." 

§  7.  Thirdly,  we  distinguish  between  an  absolute  archi- 
tectonical  and  nomothetical  power,  independent  upon  any 
other  law,  and  a  legislative  power,  absolute  as  to  persons, 
but  regulated  by  a  higher  law.  The  former  we  attribute  to 
none  but  God;  the  latter  belongs  to  a  supreme  magistrate,  in 
reference  to  things  belonging  to  his  power,  either  in  church  or 
commonwealth.  By  an  architectonical,  nomothetical  power, 
we  mean  that  power  which  is  distinguished  from  that  which 
is  properly  called  political.^  The  former  lies  in  the  making 
laws  for  the  good  of  the  commonwealth;  the  latter  in  a  due 
execution  and  administration  of  those  laws  for  the  common 
good.  This  we  h^ve  asserted  as  to  the  magistrate  already:  we 
now  con^e  to  assert  the  other;  where  we  shall  first  set  down 


1  In  loc.  torn.  3,     Ed.  ^ton.  p,  189.     Ed.  1607. 

2  De  Episcop.  Const.  Magn.  3  Aristot.  Ethic,  lib.  6,  c.  6. 

10 


74  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OV 

the  bounds  of  this  power,  and  then  see  to  whom  it  belongs. 
First,  then,  we  say  not,  that  the  magistrate  hath  a  power  to 
revoke,  repeal,  or  alter  any  divine  positive  law;  which  we 
have  already  shown.  Secondly,  we  say  not,  that  the  magis- 
trate by  his  own  will  may  constitute  what  new  laws  he  please 
for  the  worship  of  God.  This  was  the  fault  of  Jeroboam  who 
made  Israel  to  sin,  and  therefore  by  the  rule  of  reason  must 
be  supposed  to  sin  more  himself;  so  Hkewise  Ahab,  Ahaz, 
and  others.  Religion  is  a  thing  settled  by  a  divine  law;  and 
as  it  is  taken  for  the  doctrine  and  worship  of  God,  so  it  is 
contained  in  the  word  of  God,  and  must  be  fetched  wholly 
•from  thence.  But  then  thirdly,  the  magistrate  by  his  power, 
may  make  that  which  is  a  divine  law  already,  become  the 
law  of  the  land.  Thus  religion  may  be  incorporated  among 
our  laws,  and  the  Bible  become  our  magna  charta.  So  the 
first  law  in  the  codex  Theod.  is  about  the  believing  the  Trinity, 
and  many  others  about  religion  are  inserted  into  it.  Now  as 
to  these  things  clearly  revealed  in  the  word  of  God,  and 
withal  commanded  by  the  civil  magistrate,  although  the  joW- 
mary  obligation  to  the  doing  them,  is  from  the  former  deter- 
mination by  a  divine  law;  yet  the  sanction  of  them  by  the 
civil  magistrate,  may  cause  a  further  obligation  upon  con- 
science than  was  before,  and  may  add  punishments  and  re- 
wards not  expressed  before.  For  although  when  two  laws 
are  contrary  the  one  to  the  other,  the  obligation  to  the  higher 
law  takes  away  the  obligation  to  the  other;  yet  when  they 
are  of  the  same  nature,  or  subordinate  one  to  the  other,  there 
may  a  new  obligation  arise  from  the  same  law,  enacted  by  a 
new  authority.  As  the  commands  of  the  decalogue  brought 
a  new  obligation  upon  the  consciences  of  the  Jews,  though 
the  things  contained  in  them,  were  commanded  before  in  the 
law  of  nature:  And  as  a  vow  made  by  a  man,  adds  a  new 
tie  to  his  conscience,  when  the  matter  of  his  vow  is  the  same 
with  what  the  word  of  God  commands;  and  renewing  our 
covenant  with  God  after  baptism,  renews  our  obligation:  so 
when  the  faith  of  the  gospel  becomes  the  law  of  a  nation,  men 
are  bound  by  a  double  cord  of  duty  to  entertain  and  profess 
that  faith.  Fourthly,  in  matters  undetermined  by  the  word, 
concerning  the  external  polity  of  the  church  of  God,  the  ma- 
gistrate hath  the  power  of  determining  things,  so  they  be 
agreeable  to  the  word  of  God.  This  last  clause  is  that  which 
binds  the  magistrate's  power,  that  it  is  not  absolutely  archi- 
tectonical,  because  all  his  laws  must  be  regulated  by  the 
general  rules  of  the  divine  law.     But  though  it  be  not  as  to 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 


7tf 


laws,  yet  I  say  it  is  as  to  persons;  that  is,  that  no  other  per- 
sons have  any  power  to  make  laws,  binding  men  to  obedience, 
but  only  the  civil  magistrate.  This  is  another  part  of  the  con- 
troversy between  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  power,  about  the 
power  of  determining  matters  belonging  to  the  church's  go- 
vermnent:  but  there  is  here  no  such  breach  between  those 
two,  but  what  may  be  made  up  with  a  distinction  or  two. 
We  distinguish  then  between  a-poioer  declarative,  of  the  obli- 
gation of  former  laws,  and  a  poioer  authoritative,  determining 
a  new  obligation;  between  the  office  of  counselling  and  ad- 
vimig  what  is  fit  to  be  done,  and  a  power  determining  ivhat 
shall  be  done;  between  the  magistrate's  duty  of  consulting, 
in  order  to  the  doing  it,  and  his  deriving  his  authority  for  the 
doing  it.  These  things  premised,  I  say:  First,  that  the  power 
of  declaring  the  obligation  of  former  laws,  and  of  consulting 
and  advising  the  magistrate  for  settling  of  new  laws,  for  the 
policy  of  the  church,  belongs  to  the  pastors  and  governors  of 
the  church  of  God.  This  belongs  to  them,  as  they  are  com- 
manded to  teach  lohat  Christ  hath  commanded  them;^  but 
no  authority  thereby  given  to  make  new  laws  to  bind  the 
church;  but  rather  a  tying  them  up  to  the  commands  of  Christ 
already  laid  down  in  his  word.  For  a  power  to  bind  men's 
consciences  to  their  determinations,  lodged  in  the  officers  of 
the  church,  must  be  derived  either  from  a  law  of  God  giving 
them  this  right,  or  else  only  from  the  consent  of  parties.  As  to 
any  law  of  God,  there  is  none  produced  with  any  probability 
of  reason,  but  that.  Obey  those  that  are  over  you  in  the  Lord? 
But  that  implies  no  more  than  submitting  to  the  doctrine  and 
discipline  of  the  gospel,  and  to  those  whom  Christ  hath  con- 
stituted as  pastors  of  his  church,  wherein  the  law  of  Christ 
doth  require  obedience  to  them,  that  is,  in  looking  upon  them, 
and  owning  them  in  their  relation  to  them  as  pastors.  But 
that  gives  them  no  authority  to  make  any  new  laws  or  con- 
stitutions, binding  men's  consciences  any  more  than  a  com- 
mand from  the  supreme  authority  that  inferior  magistrates 
should  be  obeyed,  doth  imply  any  power  in  them  to  make 
new  laws  to  bind  them.  But  thus  far  I  acknowledge  a  bind- 
ing power  in  ecclesiastical  constitutions,  though  they  neither 
bind  by  virtue  of  the  matter,  nor  of  the  authority  command- 
ing, (there  being  no  legislative  power  lodged  in  the  church,) 
yet  in  respect  of  the  circumstances  and  the  end,  they  should 
be  obeyed,  unless  I  judge  the  thing  unlawful  that  is  com- 

'  Matlh.  xviii.  18.  ^  Hcb.  xiii.  17. 


76  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

manded,  rather  than  manifest  open  contempt  of  the  pastors  of 
the  church,  or  being  a  scandal  to  others  by  it.^  But  as  to  the 
other  power,  arising  from  mutual  compact  and  consent  of  par- 
ties, I  acknowledge  a  power  to  bind  all  included  under  that 
compact,  not  by  virtue  of  any  supreme  binding  power  in  them, 
but  from  the  free  consent  of  the  parties  submitting;  which  is 
most  agreeable  to  the  nature  of  church  power,  being  not  co- 
active  but.  directive;  and  such  was  the  confederate  discipline 
of  the  primitive  church,  before  they  had  any  Christian  magis- 
trate: and  thence  the  decrees  of  councils  were  called  canons^ 
and  not  laws. 

Secondly,  Though  it  be  the  magistrate's  duty  to  consult  with 
the  pastors  of  the  church,  to  know  what  is  most  agreeable  to 
the  word  of  God,  for  the  settlement  of  the  church;  yet  the 
magistrate  doth  not  derive  his  authority  in  commanding  things 
from  their  sentence,  decree,  and  judgment;  but  doth  by  virtue 
of  his  own  power  cause  the  obligation  of  men  to  what  is  so 
determined,  by  his  own  enacting  what  shall  be  done  in  the 
church.  The  great  use  of  synods,  and  assemblies  of  pastors 
of  churches,  is  to  be  as  the  council  of  the  church  unto  the 
king,  in  matters  belonging  to  the  church,  as  the  parliament  is 
for  matters  of  civil  concernment.  And  as  the  king,  for  the 
settling  of  civil  laws,  doth  take  advice  of  such  persons  who 
are  most  versed  in  matters  of  law;  so  by  proportion  of  reason, 
in  matters  concerning  the  church,  they  are  the  fittest  council, 
who  have  been  the  most  versed  in  matters  immediately  be- 
longing to  the  church:  in  the  management  of  which  affairs, 
as  much,  if  not  more  prudence,  experience,  judgment,  mode- 
ration, is  requisite,  than  in  the  greatest  affairs  of  state.  For  we 
have  found  by  doleful  experience,  that  if  a  fire  once  catch  the 
church,  and  Aaron's  bells  ring  backward,  what  a  combustion 
the  whole  state  is  suddenly  put  into,  and  how  hardly  the 
church's  instruments  for  quenching  such  fires,  lachrymx  et 
preces  Ecclesise,  "the  tears  and  prayers  of  the  church,"  do 
attain  their  end.  The  least  peg  screwed  up  too  high  in  the 
church  soon  causeth  a  great  deal  of  discord  in  the  state,  and 
quickly  puts  men's  spirits  out  of  tune.  Whereas  many  irregu- 
larities may  happen  in  the  state,  and  men  live  in  quietness 
and  peace.  But  if  phaetons  drive  the  chariot  of  the  sun,  the 
world  will  be  soon  on  fire.  I  mean  such  in  the  church  whose 
brains,  like  the  unicorn's,  run  out  into  the  length  of  the  horn; 

I  V.  Pcty,  Martyr,  in  1  Sam.  14.     Whitaker,  cont.  4,  q.  7.     Cameron,  de  Ec- 
ck's  p.  386,  torn.  1  op.  ^  Rules. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  77 

such  who  have  more  fury  than  zeal,  and  yet  more  zeal  than 
knowledge  or  moderation.  Persons,  therefore,  whose  calling, 
temper,  office,  and  experience  hath  best  acquainted  them  with 
the  state  actions,  policy  of  the  primitive  church,  and  the  in- 
comparable prudence  and  moderation  then  used,  are  fittest  to 
debate,  consult,  deliberate,  and  determine  about  the  safest 
expedients  for  repairing  breaches  in  a  divided,  broken,  dis- 
tracted church.  But  yet,  I  say,  when  such  men  thus  assem- 
bled have  gravely  and  maturely  advised  and  deliberated  what 
is  best  and  most  fit  to  be  done,  the  force,  strength,  and  obliga- 
tion of  the  things  so  determined  doth  depend  upon  the  power 
and  authority  of  the  civil  magistrate:  for  taking  the  church  as 
incorporated  into  the  civil  state,  as  Ecclesia  est  in  republicd, 
non  respublica  in  ecclesia,  "  the  church  is  in  the  common- 
wealth, not  the  commonwealth  in  the  church,"  according  to 
that  known  speech  of  Optatus  Milivetanus;^  so,  though  the 
object  of  these  constitutions,  and  the  persons  determining  them, 
and  the  matter  of  them  be  ecclesiastical,  yet  the  force  and 
ground  of  the  obligation  of  them  is  wholly  civil.  So  Peter 
Martyr  expressly;^  "For  what  pertains  to  the  ecclesiastic 
power,  efficiently  belongs  to  the  civil  magistrate;  for  he  ought 
to  take  care  that  all  discharge  their  duty."  (But  for  the  judg- 
ment of  the  reformed  Divines  about  this,  see  Vedeliiis  de 

Episcopatu  Constant.     M ayid  officium  magistratus 

christiani,  "the  duty  of  the  Christian  magistrate,"  annexed 
to  Grotius  de  Imper.  S^c.)  I  therefore  proceed  to  lay  down 
the  reason  of  it.  First,  That  whereby  we  are  bound  either 
to  obedience,  or  penalty  upon  disobedience,  is  the  ground  of 
the  obligation;  but  it  is  upon  the  account  of  the  magistrate's 
power  that  we  are  either  bound  to  obedience,  or  to  submit  to 
penalties  upon  disobedience.  For  it  is  upon  the  account  of 
our  general  obligation  to  the  magistrate,  that  we  are  bound 
to  obey  any  particular  laws  or  constitutions.  Because  it  is 
not  the  particular  determinations  made  by  the  civil  magistrate, 
which  do  immediately  bind  conscience,  but  the  general  law  of 
scripture  requires  it  as  a  duty  from  us,  to  obey  the  magistrate 
in  all  things  lawful.  Obedience  to  the  magistrate  is  due  im- 
mediately from  conscience;  but  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the 
magistrate  comes  not  directly  from  conscience  but  by  virtue 
of  the  general  obligation.     And  therefore  disobedience  to  the 

•  Lib.  2,  c.  Parinen. 

2  Nam,  quod  ad  potestatem  ccclcsiasticam  attinet,  satis  est  civilis  magistratus: 
is  cnira  curare  debet  utomnes  officium  faciant. — In  1  Sam.  viii.  Loc.  Com.  Class. 
4,  c.  5,  sect.  ]1. 


'^S  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

magistrate's  laws  is  an  immediate  sin  against  conscience,  be- 
cause it  is  against  the  general  obligation;  but  obedience  to 
particular  laws  ariseth  not  immediately  from  the  obligation  of 
conscience  to  them  in  particular,  but  to  the  magistrate  in 
general.  So  that  in  things  left  lawful  and  undetermined  by 
the  word,  where  there  ariseth  no  obligation  from  the  matter, 
it  must  arise  from  our  subjection  and  relation  to  the  magis- 
trate; and  what  is  the  ground  of  obedience,  is  the  cause  of  the 
obligation.  Secondly^  He  hath  only  the  power  of  obligations 
who  hath  the  power  of  making  sanctions  to  those  laws.  By 
sanctions,  I  mean  here,  in  the  sense  of  the  civil  law,^  "  those 
parts  of  the  law  which  determine  the  punishments  of  the 
violaters  of  it."  Now  it  is  evident  that  he  only  hath  power 
to  oblige  who  hath  power  to  punish  upon  disobedience.  And 
it  is  as  evident  that  none  hath  power  to  punish  but  the  civil 
magistrate;  I  speak  of  legal  penalties  which  are  annexed  to 
such  laws  as  concern  the  church.  Now  there  being  no  co- 
ercive or  coactive  power  belonging  to  the  church  as  such,  all 
the  force  of  such  laws  as  respect  the  outward  polity  of  the 
church,  must  be  derived  from  the  civil  magistrate.  Thirdly^ 
He  who  can  null  and  declare  all  other  obligations  void,  done 
without  his  power,  hath  the  only  power  to  oblige.  For  what- 
soever destroys  a  former  obligation,  must  of  necessity  imply  a 
power  to  oblige,  because  I  am  bound  to  obey  him  in  the  ab- 
staining from  that  I  was  formerly  obliged  to:  but  this  power 
belongs  to  the  magistrate.  For  suppose,  in  some  indifferent 
rites  and  ceremonies,  the  church  representative,  that  is,  the 
governors  of  it /;ro  tempore^  do  prescribe  them  to  be  observed 
by  all,  the  supreme  power  forbids  the  doing  of  those  things, 
if  this  doth  not  null  the  former  supposed  obligation,  I  must 
inevitably  run  upon  these  absurdities.  First,  that  there  are 
two  supreme  powers  in  a  nation  at  the  same  time.  Secondly, 
that  a  man  may  lie  under  two  different  obligations  as  to  the 
same  thing;  he  is  bound  to  do  it  by  one  power,  and  not  to  do 
it  by  the  other.  Thirdly,  the  same  action  may  be  a  duty  and 
a  sin;  a  duty  in  obeying  the  one  power,  a  sin  in  disobeying 
the  other.  Therefore  there  can  be  but  one  power  to  oblige, 
which  is  that  of  the  supreme  magistrate. 
•  §  8.  Having  thus  far  asserted  the  magistrate's  due  power 
and  authority,  as  to  matters  of  religion;  we  proceed  to  exam- 

'  Eas  Icgum  partes,  quibus  pasnas  constituimus  adversus  eos  qui  contra  leges 
fecerint. — Papin,  I.  4i,  D.  de  pssnis  Hottoman,  Com.  v.  juris  v.  sanct.  Cicero  ad 
Artie.  I.  3,  ep.  23. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  79 

ine  the  extent  of  this  power,  in  determining  things  left  at 
liberty  by  the  word  of  God,  in  order  to  the  peace  and  govern- 
ment of  the  church.  For  our  clear  and  distinct  proceeding,  I 
shall  ascend  by  these  three  steps:  First,  to  show  that  there  are 
some  things  left  undetermined  by  the  word.  Secondly,  that 
these  tilings  are  capable  of  positive  determinations  and  re- 
straint. Thirdly,  that  there  are  some  bounds  and  limits  to  be 
observed  in  the  stating  and  determining  these  things.  First, 
that  there  are  some  things  left  undetermined  by  the  word:  by 
determining  here,  I  do  not  mean  determining  whether  things 
be  lawful  or  not;  for  so  there  is  no  rite  or  ceremony  whatsoever, 
but  is  determined  by  the  Scripture  in  that  sense,  or  may  be 
gathered  from  the  application  of  particular  actions,  to  the 
general  rules  of  Scripture:  but  by  determining,!  mean,  whether 
all  things  concerning  the  church's  polity  and  order  be  deter- 
mined as  duties  or  not:  viz.  that  this  we  are  bound  to  observe, 
and  the  other  not.  As  for  instance,  what  time,  manner,  me- 
thod, gesture,  habit,  be  used  in  preaching  the  word;  whether 
baptism  must  be  by  dipping  or  sprinkling;  at  what  day,  time, 
place,  the  child  shall  be  baptized,  and  other  things  of  a  like 
nature  with  these.  Those  who  assert  any  of  these  as  duties, 
must  produce  necessarily  the  command  making  them  to  be 
so:  for  duty  and  command  have  a  necessary  respect  and 
relation  to  one  another.  If  no  command  be  brought,  it  neces- 
sarily follows,  that  they  are  left  at  liberty.  So  as  to  the 
Lord's  supper  Calvin  saith,  whether  the  communicants  take 
the  bread  themselves,  or  receive  it  being  given  them;  whether 
they  should  give  the  cup  into  the  hands  of  the  deacon,  or  to 
their  next  neighbour;  whether  the  bread  be  leavened  or  not,  the 
wine  red  or  white,  nihil  refert,  it  matters  not:^  Hxc  indifferen- 
tia  sunt  et  i?i  ecclesia  libertate  posita;  "  they  are  matters 
of  indifference  and  are  left  to  the  churches  liberty.^'  But  this 
matter  of  indifferency  is  not  yet  so  clear  as  it  is  generally  thought 
to  be;  we  shall  therefore  bare  the  ground  a  little  by  some  ne- 
cessary distinctions  to  see  where  the  root  of  indifferency  lies: 
which  we  shall  the  rather  do,  because  it  is  strongly  asserted 
by  an  honourable  person,  that  there  is  no  indifferency  in  the 
things  themselves,  which  are  still  either  unlawful  or  necessary, 
(if  lawful  at  this  time,  in  these  circumstances,)  but  all  indiffer- 
ency lies  in  the  darkness  and  shortness  of  our  undestandings, 
which   may  make  some  things  seem  so   to  us.^    But  that 

t  Institut.  1.  4,  cap.  17,  s.  43,  et  cap.  15,  s.  19. 
*  Nature  of  Episc.  chap.  5. 


80  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

honourable  person  clearly  runs  upon  a  double  mistake.  First, 
that  indifferency  is  a  medium  pm^ticipationis  of  both  ex- 
tremes, and  not.  only  negationis,  viz.  that,  as  intermediate 
colours  partake  both  of  black  and  white,  and  yet  are  neither; 
so  in  morality,  between  good  and  bad,  there  is  an  interme- 
diate entity,  which  is  neither,  but  indifferent  to  either:  where- 
as the  nature  of  indifferency  lies  not  in  anything  intermediate 
between  good  and  bad;  but  in  something  undetermined  by 
divine  laws,  as  to  the  necessity  of  it;  so  that  if  we  speak  as  to 
the  extremes  of  it,  it  is  something  lying  between  a  necessary 
duty,  and  an  intrinsical  evil.  The  other  mistake  is,  that 
throughout  that  discourse  he  takes  indifferency  as  circumstan- 
tiated in  individual  actions,  and  as  the  morality  of  the  action 
is  determined  by  its  circumstances;  whereas  the  proper  notion 
of  indifferency  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  action,  considered  in 
itself  abstractly;  and  so  these  things  are  implied  in  an  indiffer- 
ent action.  First,  absolute  undetermination,  as  to  the  gene- 
ral nature  of  the  act  by  a  divine  law,  that  God  hath  left  it 
free  for  men  to  do  it  or  not.  Secondly,  that  one  part  hath  not 
more  propension  to  the  rule  than  the  other;  for  if  the  doing  of 
it  comes  nearer  to  the  rule  then  the  omission;  or  on  the  con- 
trary, this  action  is  not  wholly  indifferent.  Thirdly,  that 
neither  part  hath  any  repugnancy  to  the  rule;  for  that  which 
hath  so,  is  so  far  from  being  indifferent,  that  it  becomes  un- 
lawful: so  that  an  indifferent  action  is  therein  like  the  iron 
accosted  by  two  loadstones  on  either  side  of  equal  virtue,  and 
so  hovers  in  medio,  inclining  to  neither;  but,  supposing  any 
degree  of  virtue  added  to  the  one  above  the  other,  it  then  in- 
clines towards  it:  or  as  the  magnetical  needle  about  the  Azores, 
keeps  itself  directly  parallel  to  the  axis  of  the  world  without 
variation,  because  it  is  supposed  then  to  be  at  an  equal  dis- 
tance from  the  two  great  magnets,  the  continents  of  Europe 
and  America:  but  no  sooner  is  it  removed  from  thence,  but 
it  hath  its  variations.  So  indifferency,  taken  in  specie,  as  to 
the  nature  of  the  act,  inclines  neither  way;  but  supposing  it 
lie  under  positive  determinations,  either  by  laws  or  circum- 
stances, it  then  necessarily  inclines  either  to  the  nature  of  good 
or  evil. 

Neither  yet  are  we  come  to  a  full  understanding  of  the 
nature  of  indifferent  actions;  we  must  therefore  distinguish 
between  indifferency,  as  to  goodness,  necessitating  an  action 
to  be  done,  and  as  to  goodness,  necessary  to  an  action  to  make 
it  good:  For  there  is  one  kind  of  goodness  'propter  quam  fit 
actio,  in  order  to  which  the  action  must  necessarily  be  done, 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  81 

and  there  is  another  kind  of  goodness  sine  qud  non  ben^  fit 
actio,  "  without  which  the  action  is  not  done  well,"  necessary 
to  make  an  action  good  when  it  is  done.  As  following  after 
peace  hath  such  a  goodness  in  it,  as  necessitates  the  action, 
and  makes  it  a  necessary  duty:  but  handling  a  particular  con- 
troversy is  such  an  action  as  a  man  may  let  alone  without 
sin  in  his  course  of  studies;  yet  when  he  doth  it,  there  is  a 
goodness  necessary  to  make  his  doing  it  a  good  action,  viz.  his 
referring  his  study  of  it  to  a  right  end,  for  the  obtaining  of 
truth  and  peace.  This  latter  goodness  is  twofold,  either  bo- 
nitas  dircctiojiis,  "  the  goodness  or  integrity  of  the  intention," 
as  some  call  it,  which  is,  referring  the  action  to  its  true  end;  in 
reference  to  which,  the  great  controversy  among  the  school- 
men, is  about  the  indiftercncy  of  particular  actions,  viz. 
whether  a  particular  direction  of  a  man's  intention  to  the 
ultimate  end,  be  not  so  necessary  to  particular  actions,  as  that, 
without  which  the  action  is  of  necessity  evil,  and  with  it  good; 
or  whether  without  that,  an  action  may  be  indifferent  to  good 
or  evil,i  which  is  the  state  of  the  question  between  Thomas 
and  Scotus,  Bonaventure  and  Durandus:  but  we  assert  the 
neqessity  of  at  least  an  habitual  direction,  to  make  the  action 
in  individuo,  "as  a  whole,"  good;  and  yet  the  act  in  itself  may 
notwithstanding  be  indifferent,  even  in  individuo,  as  there  is 
no  antecedent  necessity  lying  upon  men's  consciences  for  the 
doing  of  it;  because  men  may  omit  it,  and  break  no  law  of 
God.  Besides  this,  to  make  an  action  good,  there  is  necessary 
a  bonitas  originis,  or  rather  prijicipii,  "a  good  principle,"  out 
of  which  the  action  must  flow;  which  must  be  that  faith, 
which  whatsoever  is  not  of,  is  sin,  as  the  apostle  tells  us.^ 
Which  we  must  not  so  understand,  as  though  in  every  action 
a  man  goes  about,  he  must  have  a  full  persuasion  that  it  is  a 
necessary  duty  he  goes  about;  but  in  many  actions  that  faith 
is  sufficient,  whereby  he  is  persuaded  upon  good  ground,  that 
the  thing  he  goes  about  is  lawful;  although  he  may  as  law- 
fully omit  that  action,  and  do  either  another,  or  the  contrary 
to  it.  There  may  be  then  the  necessity  of  some  things  in  an 
action  when  it  is  done  to  make  it  good,  and  yet  the  action 
itself  be  no  ways  necessary,  but  indifferent,  and  a  matter  of 
liberty.  This  may  be  easily  understood  by  what  is  usually 
said  of  God's  particular  actions,  that  God  is  free  in  himself 
either  to  do  or  not  to  do  that  action,  (as  suppose  the  creation  of 
the  world,)  but  when  he  doth  it,  he  must  necessarily  do  it  with 

»  V.  Forbes.  Ircn.  lib.  I.  cap.  13.  2  Rom.  xiv.  23. 

11 


82  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

that  goodness,  holiness,  and  wisdom,  which  is  suitable  to  his 
nature:  So  may  many  actions  of  men  be  in  themselves  in- 
different, and  yet  there  must  be  a  concomitant  necessity  of 
good  intention  and  principle  to  make  the  action  good.  But 
this  concomitant  necessity  doth  not  destroy  the  radical  indif- 
ferency  of  the  action  itself;  it  is  only  an  antecedent  necessity 
from  the  obligation  of  the  law,  that  destroys  inditferency. 
So  likewise  it  is  as  to  evil;  there  is  such  an  evil  in  an 
action,  which  not  only  spoils  the  action,  but  hinders  the 
person  from  the  liberty  of  doing  it,  that  is,  in  all  such  actions 
as  are  intrinsically  evil;  and  there  is  such  a  kind  of  evil  in 
actions,  which  though  it  spoils  the  goodness  of  the  action, 
yet  keeps  not  from  performance;  which  is  such  as  ariseth  from 
the  manner  of  performance,  as  praying  in  hypocrisy,  &c., 
doing  a  thing  lawful  with  a  scrupulous  or  erring  conscience. 
We  see  then  what  good  and  evil  is  consistent  with  indifferency 
in  actions,  and  what  is  not.  And  that  the  nature  of  actions, 
even  in  individuo,  "as  a  whole,  or  in  its  general  character," 
may  be  indifferent,  when  as  to  their  circumstances  they  may 
be  necessarily  determined  to  be  either  good  or  evil.  As  mar- 
rying, or  not  marrying,  as  to  the  law  of  God,  is  left  at  liberty, 
not  making  it  in  itself  a  necessary  duly,  one  wa^?"  or  other;  but, 
supposing  particular  circumstances  make  it  necessary,  pro 
hic  et  nunc,  "  as  to  place  and  time,"  yet  the  nature  of  it  re- 
mains indifferent  still;  and  supposing  marriage  is  necessary,  it 
should  be  in  the  Lord,  and  yet  it  is  not  necessary  to  make 
choice  of  this  person  rather  than  of  that,  so  that  not  only  the 
absolute  indifferency  of  the  action  is  consistent  with  this  con- 
comitant necessity,  but  the  full  liberty,  both  of  contradiction 
and  contrariety.^  Again,  we  must  distinguish  between  an 
indifferency,  as  to  its  nature  and  indifferency ,  as  to  its  use 
and  end;  or  between  an  indifferency  as  to  a  laiv,  and  indif- 
ferency as  to  order  and  peace:  Here  I  say,  that  in  things 
wholly  indifferent  in  both  respects,  that  is,  in  a  thing  neither 
commanded  nor  forbidden  by  God,  nor  that  hath  any  apparent 
respect  to  the  peace  and  order  of  the  church  of  God,  there  can 
be  no  rational  account  given,  why  the  nature  of  such  indiffer- 
encies  should  be  altered  by  any  human  laws  and  constitutions. 
But  matters  that  are  only  indifferent  as  to  a  command,  but 
are  much  conducing  to  the  peace  and  order  of  a  church,  such 
things  as  these,  are  the  proper  matter  of  human  constitutions 
concerning  the  church's  polity:  Or  rather,  to  keep  to  the  words 

>  This  is  an  allusion  to  the  logical  distinction  o^  contradictories  unA  contraries. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  83 

of  the  hypothesis  itself,  where  any  things  are  determined  in 
general  by  the  word  of  God,  but  left  at  liberty  as  to  manner 
and  circumstcfnces,  it  is  in  the  power  of  lawful  authority  in 
the  church  of  God  to  determine  such  things,  as  far  as  they  tend 
to  the  promoting  the  good  of  the  church. 

§  9.  And  so  I  rise  to  the  second  step,  which  is,  that  matters 
of  this  nature  may  be  determined  and  restrained.  Or,  that 
there  is  no  necessity,  that  all  matters  of  liberty  should  remain 
in  their  primary  indifferency.  This  I  know  is  asserted  by  some 
of  great  note  and  learning;  that  in  things  which  God  hath  left 
to  our  Christian  liberty,  man  may  not  restrain  us  of  it,  by  sub- 
jecting those  things  to  positive  laws;  but  I  come  to  examine, 
with  what  strength  of  reason  this  is  said,  that  so  we  may  see, 
whether  men  may  not  yield  in  some  lawful  things  to  a  re- 
straint of  their  Christian  liberty,  in  order  to  the  peace  of  the 
church  of  God:  which  I  now  prove  by  these  arguments. 
First,  what  may  be  lawfully  done  when  it  is  commanded, 
may  be  so  far  lawfully  commanded,  as  it  is  a  thing  in  itself 
lawful;  but  matters  of  Christian  liberty  may  be  lawfully  done 
when  they  are  commanded  to  be  done,  though  it  were  lawful 
not  to  do  them  before  that  command.  The  truth  of  the  pro- 
position appears,  because  lawful  authority  may  command 
anything  that  may  be  lawfully  done.  Because  nothing  can 
exempt  from  obedience  to  a  lawful  magistrate,  but  the  unlaw- 
fulness of  the  thing  commanded;  and  therefore  nothing  can 
debar  the  magistrate  from  commanding  these  things;  for 
nothing  can  hinder  him  from  commanding,  but  what  may 
hinder  the  subject  from  obedience.  I  grant  in  many  cases  it 
may  be  lawful  to  obey,  when  it  is  very  mconvenient  for  the 
magistrate  to  command:  but  inconveniency  and  unlawfulness 
are  two  things;  nay,  and  in  some  cases  a  man  may  lawfully 
obey  when  he  is  unlawfully  commanded;  but  then  the  matter 
of  the  command  itself  is  unlawful.  As  in  executing  an  unjust 
sentence,  granting  that  a  prince's  servants  may  lawfully  do  it, 
especially  when  they  know  it  not;  yet  in  that  case,  the  ground 
of  their  lawful  obedience,  is  the  ground  of  the  magistrate's 
lawful  command,  which  is  the  supposed  justice  of  the  execu- 
tion. But  that  which  makes  the  magistrate's  command  un- 
lawful is  the  intrinsical  evil  of  the  thing  itself.  So  for  unlaw- 
ful wars,  though  the  subjects  may  lawfully  obey,  yet  the 
prince  sins  in  commanding,  not  but  that  he  hath  right  to 
command  so  far  as  they  are  bound  to  obey,  which  is  only 
in  things  lawful:  but  that  which  in  this  case  alters  the  mat- 
ter, is,  the  prince's  knowing  his  cause  to  be  unjust.  So  that 
the  proposition  holds  in  things  not  manifestly  unjust.     But 


^  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

however  this  be,  it  is  hereby  granted,  that  the  things  may  be 
lawfully  done,  when  they  are  restrained  by  the  magistrate's 
command:  and  by  that  it  appears,  that  libertV  may  be  re- 
strained, else  it  could  not  be  lawful  to  act  under  that  restraint, 
not  as  it  respects  the  things  themselves,  but  under  that  for- 
mality, as  they  are  the  restraint  of  that  which  ought  to  be  left 
free.  The  restraint  however  then  is  lawful,  as  to  the  persons 
acting  under  authority,  who  are  the  subjects  of  this  liberty, 
though  it  were  granted  unlawful  as  to  the  authority  doing  it. 
Which  former  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose,  viz.  that  Christian 
liberty,  as  to  the  subjects  of  it,  may  be  lawfully  restrained. 
Secondly,  a  less  duty  ceaseth  to  be  a  duty,  when  it  hinders 
from  the  performance  of  greater;  but  the  preserving  Christian 
liberty  is  a  less  duty,  which  may  hinder  the  peace  of  the 
church,  which  is  a  greater;  therefore  in  that  case  it  may  be 
restrained.  The  'major  is  granted  by  divines  and  casuists; 
when  duties  stand  in  competition,  the  less  ceaseth  to  bind, 
as  is  evident,  in  that  God  will  have  mercy  rather  than  sacri- 
fice. Positives  yield  to  morals  and  naturals.  Thence  the 
obligation  of  an  oath  ceaseth,  when  it  hinders  from  a  natural 
duty;  as  the  Corban  among  the  Jews  from  relief  of  parents. 
And  therefore  Grotias^  saith,  that  an  oath  taken  concerning 
a  thing  lawful,  if  it  doth  hinder  majiis  honum  morale,  "the 
greater  moral  good,"  the  obligation  of  that  oath  ceaseth. 
Now  that  preserving  liberty  is  a  less  duty  than  the  looking 
after  the  peace  of  the  church,  is  evident,  because  the  one  is 
only  a  matter  of  liberty,  and  left  undetermined  by  the  word; 
and  the  other  a  matter  of  necessity,  and  absolutely  and  ex- 
pressly required  of  all,  as  a  duty  as  much  as  possibly  lies  in 
them  to  endeavour  after.  Thirdly,  if  an  occasional  offence  of 
weaker  brethren  may  be  a  ground  for  restraining  Christian 
liberty,  then  much  more  may  commands  from  lawful  autho- 
rity do  it;  but  the  offence  of  weaker  brethren  may  restrain 
Christian  liberty  as  to  the  exercise  of  it,  as  appears  by  the 
apostle's  discourse,  Rom.  xiv.  21.  The  reason  of  the  conse- 
quence lies  here,  that  a  case  of  mere  offence,  which  is  here 
pleaded  towards  weak  brethren,  cannot  have  that  obligation 
upon  conscience,  which  a  known  duty  of  obeying  lawful  au- 
rity,  in  things  in  themselves  lawful,  hath.  Nay  further,  in- 
sisting only  on  the  law  of  scandal,  I  would  fain  know, 
whether  it  be  a  greater  offence  and  scandal  to  Christians' 
consciences,  to  infringe  the  lawful  authority  of  the  magis- 
trate, and  to  deny  obedience  to  his  commands,  in  things  un- 

'  Grot,  de  jure  belli  »fc  pacis.  lib,  2,  cap.  13,  sect.  7. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  85 

determined  by  the  law  of  God;  or  else  to  offend  the  con- 
sciences, that  is,  go  against  the  judgments  of  the  well-meaning, 
but  less-knowing  Christians.  Or  thus,  whether  in  the  matter 
of  scandal,  it  be  a  greater  otfence  to  go  against  the  judgments 
of  the  weaker  and  more  ignorant,  or  the  more  knowing  and 
able;  wlien  the  one  have  only  their  own  weak  apprehension 
to  bias  them,  tlie  other  are  backed  by  and  grounded  upon  an 
established  law.  And  whether  it  be  not  a  greater  scandal  to 
religion  to  disobey  a  Christian  magistrate,  than  it  is  to  offend 
some  private  Christians.  Let  these  things  be  examined,  and 
then  let  us  see  whether  the  argument  will  not  hold  u  majori; 
if  the  law  of  scandal  as  to  private  Christians  may  restrain 
liberty,  then  may  a  command  from  the  magistrate  do  it. 
Fourthly,  I  argue  thus,  if  the  nature  of  Christian  liberty  may 
be  preserved  under  the  restraint  of  the  exercise  of  it,  then  it 
is  not  against  the  nature  of  Christian  liberty  to  have  the  exer- 
cise restrained;  but  the  former  is  true;  and  therefore  the 
latter.  Now  that  the  nature  of  Christian  liberty  may  be  pre- 
served under  the  restraint  of  its  exercise,  I  prove  by  these 
arguments. 

§  10.  First,  Because  the  nature  of  Christian  liberty  is 
founded  upon  the  freedom  of  judgment,  and  not  the  freedom 
of  practice.  The  case  is  the  same  in  moral  and  natural 
liberty  as  in  Christian.  Now  we  say  truly,  that  the  radical 
liberty  of  the  soul  is  preserved,  though  it  be  determined  to  a 
particular  action.  For  the  liberty  of  the  will  lying  in  the 
power  of  determining  itself  either  way,  (as  it  is  generally 
thought,)  the  actual  determination  of  the  will  doth  not  take 
away  the  internal  power  in  the  soul;  and  in  that  respect  there 
may  be  a  poientia  faciendi  where  there  is  not  possibilitas 
effectus,  "a  power  of  doing  when  there  is  no  possibility  the 
thing  should  be  done;"  when  the  event  is  otherwise  deter- 
mined by  a  divine  decree,  as  in  breaking  the  bones  of  Christ 
upon  the  cross.  So  it  is  in  reference  to  Christain  liberty; 
though  the  exercise  of  it  be  restrained,  yet  the  liberty  re- 
mains: because  Christian  liberty  lies  in  the  freedom  of  judg- 
ment; that  is,  in  judging  those  things  to  be  free  which  are 
so;  so  that  if  anything,  in  itself  free,  be  done  by  a  man 
with  an  opinion  of  the  necessity  of  doing  it  antecedent  to 
the  law  commanding  it,  or  without  any  law  prescribing 
it,  thereby  his  Christian  liberty  is  destroyed;  but  if  it  be 
done  with  an  opinion  of  the  freedom  and  indifferency  of 
the  thing  itself,  but  only  with  a  consequential  necessity  of 
doing  it,  supposing  the  magistrate's  command,  he  retains  the 
power  of  his  Christian  liberty  still,  though  under  the  restraint 


86  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

in  the  exercise  of  it.     And  therefore  it  would  be  well  ob- 
served, that  the  opinion  of  the  necessity  of  any  one  thing 
nndetermined  by  Scripture,  destroys  Christian  liberty  more 
than  a  magistrate's  command  doth.   And  by  this  reason,  they 
that  hold  any   one  posture  at  receiving  the  Lord's  supper 
necessary,  (as  sitting,  leaning,  kneeling.)  do  all  equally  destroy 
their  own  Christian  liberty  as  to  these  things  which  are  unde- 
termined by  the  word.     So  a  magistrate  when  commanding 
matters  of  Christian  liberty,  if  in  the  preface  to  the  law  he 
declares  the  thing  necessary  to  be  done  in  itself,  and  therefore 
he  commands  it,  he  takes  away  as  much  as  in  him  lies  our 
Christian  liberty.     And  in  that  case  we  ought  to  hold  to  that 
excellent  rule  of  the  apostle,  ^^  St  and  fast  therefore  in  the 
liberty  ivhereivith   Christ   hath  set  you  free,  and  be  not 
entangled  again  loith  the  yoke  of  bondage."^     But  if  the 
magistrate  declare  the  things  to  be  in  themselves  inditferent, 
but  only  upon  some  prudent  considerations  for  peace  and 
order,  he  requires  persons  to  observe  them,  though  this  brings 
a  necessity  of  obedience  to  us,  yet  it  takes  not  away  our 
Christian  liberty.     For  an  antecedent  necessity  expressed  in 
the  law,  (as  a  learned  and  excellent  casuist^  of  our  own  ob- 
serves,) doth  not  necessarily  require  the  assent  of  the  practi- 
cal judgment  to  it;  which  takes  away  our  liberty  of  judgment, 
qr  our  judgment  of  the  liberty  of  the  things;  but  a  conse- 
quential  necessity  upon   a  command   supposed,  doth   only 
imply  an  act  of  the  will,  whereby  the  freedom  of  judgment 
and  conscience  remaining,  it  is  inclined  to  obedience  to  the 
commands  of  a  superior  law.    Now  that  liberty  doth  lie  in  the 
freedom  of  judgment,  and  not  in  the  freedom  of  practice,  and 
so  is  consistent  with  the  restraint  of  the  exercise  of  it,  appears 
both  in  the  former  case  of  scandal,  and  in  the  actions  of  the 
apostles  and  primitive  Christians  complying  with  the  Jews  in 
matters  of  liberty;  yea,  which  is  a  great  deal  more,  in  such 
ceremonies  of  which  the  apostle  expressly  saith,  that  if  they 
observed  them,  Christ  would  profit  them  nothing;^  and  yet 
we  find  Paul  himself  circumcising  Timothy,^  because  of  the 
Jews.   Certainly  then  however  these  ceremonies  are  supposed 
to  be  not  only  mortuse,  "dead,"  but  mortiferse,  "death  work- 
ing," now  the  gospel  was  preached,  and  the  law  of  Christian 
liberty  promulged;  yet  Paul  did  not  look   upon  it,  as  the 
taking  away  his  liberty,  at  any  time  when  it  would  prevent 
scandal  among  the  Jews,  and  tend  to  the  furtherance  of  the 

I  Gal.  V.  1.  2D.  Sanderson,  de  oblig.  cons,  prsel.  6,  s.  5. 

3  Gal.  V.  2.  4  Acts  xvi.  3. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  87 

gospel,  to  use  any  of  them.  It  was  therefore  the  opinion  of  the 
necessity  of  them  which  destroyed  Christian  hberty;  and  there- 
fore it  is  observable,  tiiat  where  the  opinion  of  the  necessity  of 
observing  the  Judaical  rites  and  ceremonies  was  entertained, 
the  apostle  sets  himself  with  his  whole  strength  to  oppose  them, 
as  he  doth  in  his  epistles  to  the  Gtilatians  and  Colossians} 
Whom  yet  we  find  in  other  places,  and  to  other  churches, 
not  leavened  with  this  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  Judai- 
cal rites,  very  ready  to  comply  with  weak  brethren,  as  in  his 
epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Co7'inihians.^  From  which  we 
plainly  see,  that  it  was  not  the  bare  doing  of  the  things,  but 
the  doing  them  with  an  opinion  of  the  necessity  of  them,  is 
that  which  infringes  on  Christian  liberty,  and  not  the  determi- 
nation of  one  part  above  the  other  by  the  supreme  magistrate, 
when  it  is  declared  not  to  be  for  any  opinion  of  the  things 
themselves  as  necessary,  but  to  be  only  in  order  to  the 
church's  peace  and  unity.  Secondly,  It  appears  that  liberty 
is  consistent  with  the  restraint  of  the  exercise  of  it;  because 
the  very  power  of  restfeining  the  exercise  of  it,  doth  suppose 
it  to  be  a  matter  of  liberty,  and  that  both  antecedently  and 
consequentially  to  that  restraint.  Antecedently ,  so  it  is  ap- 
parent to  be  a  matter  of  liberty,  else  it  was  not  capable  of 
being  restrained.  Consequentially ,  in  that  the  ground  of 
observance  of  those  things  when  restrained,  is  not  any  neces- 
sity of  the  matter,  or  the  things  themselves;  but  only  the 
necessity  of  obeying  the  magistrate  in  things  lawful  and 
undetermined  by  the  word:  which  leads  to  another  argu- 
ment. Thirdly,  men's  obligation  to  these  things,  as  to  the 
ground  of  it,  being  only  in  point  of  contempt  and  scandal 
argues  that  the  things  are  matter  of  liberty  still.  I  grant  the 
magistrate's  authority  is  the  ground  of  obedience,  but  the 
ground  of  the  magistrate's  command  is  only  in  point  of  con- 
tempt and  scandal,  and  for  preserving  order  in  the  church. 
For  I  have  already  shown  it  to  be  unlawful,  either  to  com- 
mand or  obey,  in  reference  to  these  things,  from  any  opinion 
of  the  necessity  of  them,  and  therefore  the  only  ground  of 
observing  them,  is  to  show  that  we  are  not  guilty  of  contempt 
of  the  power  commanding  them,  nor  of  scandal  to  others  that 
are  offended  at  our  not  observing  them.  Tata  igitur  religio 
est  in  fugiendo  scandalo  et  vitando  contemptu,  saith  our 
learned   JVhitaker?    "All   our  ground  of  obedience  is  the 

'  Gal.  iv.  9,  10,  11;  Coloss.  ii.  16,  18,  19. 

2  Rom.  xiv.  3,  6,  21;  1  Cor.  x.  24.  3  Contrav.  4,  quest.  7,  cap.  2. 


88  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

avoiding  scandal  and  contempt  of  authority,"  To  the  same 
purpose  Peter  Martyr,  speaking  of  the  obhgation  of  ecclesi- 
astical laws:^  Non  ohstringunt  si  removeantur  contemptiis 
et  scandalum:  "They  involve  not  guilt,  if  contempt  and 
scandal  be  removed."  So  that  non-observance  of  indifferent 
things  commanded,  when  there  is  no  apparent  contempt  or 
scandal,  do  not  involve  a  man  in  the  guilt  of  sin:  as  suppose 
a  law  made  that  all  public  prayer  be  performed  kneeling,  if 
anything  lies  in  a  man's  way  to  hinder  him  from  that  posture, 
in  this  case  the  man  offends  not;  because  there  is  no  contempt 
or  scandal.  So  if  a  law  were  made  that  all  should  receive 
the  Lord's  supper  fasting,  if  a  man's  health  calls  for  some- 
what to  refresh  him  before,  he  sins  not  in  the  breach  of  that 
law.  And  therefore  it  is  observable,  which  Whitaker  takes 
notice  of  in  the  canons  of  the  councils  of  the  primitive  church, 
that  though  they  did  determine  many  things  belonging  to  its 
external  polity,  yet  they  observed  this  difference  in  their 
censures  or  anathemas;  that  in  matters  of  mere  order  and 
decency  they  never  pronounced  an  afiathema,  but  with  the 
supposition  of  apparent  contempt;  and  inserted.  Si  quis  con- 
tra prxsumjjserit ,  si  quis  contumaciter  contra  fecerit :  '•  If 
any  shall  presume  to  the  contrary,  if  any  shall  contumaciously 
act  to  the  contrary;"  but  in  matters  of  doctrine  or  life,  fully 
determined  by  the  law  of  God,  they  pronounced  a  simple 
anathema,  without  any  such  clause  inserted.  Now  from 
this,  we  may  take  notice  of  a  difference  between  laws  con- 
cerning indifferences  in  civil  and  ecclesiastical  matters.  That 
in  civils,  the  laws  bind  to  indifferences  without  the  case  of 
contempt  or  scandal,  because  in  these  the  public  good  is 
aimed  at,  of  which  every  private  person  is  not  fit  to  judge, 
and  therefore  it  is  our  duty  either  to  obey  or  suffer;  but  in 
ecclesiastical  constitutions,  only  peace  and  order  is  that  which 
is  looked  at,  and  therefore,  Si  nihil  contra  Ivta^tav  feceris,  non 
ieneris  illis,  "If  nothing  contrary  to  good  order  be  done, men 
are  not  bound  by  them,"  is  the  rule  here.  For  the  end  and 
reason  of  a  law  is  the  measure  of  its  obligation.  Fourthly, 
men's  being  left  free  to  do  the  things  forbidden,  either  upon  a 
repeal  of  the  former  laws,  or  when  a  man  is  from  under  obli- 
gation to  that  authority  which  commands  them,  argues  them 
still  to  he  matters  of  liberty,  and  not  matters  of  necessity.  That 
laws  respecting  indifferent  things  may  be  repealed,  I  cannot 
imagine  that  any  have  so  little  reason  as  to  deny,  upon  a  dif- 

'  Id.  1  Sam.  14. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  89 

ferent  state  of  affairs  from  what  it  was  when  they  were  first 
enacted;  or,  when  they  cannot  attain  the  ends  they  are  de- 
signed for,  the  peace  and  order  of  the  church,  but  rather 
tend  to  embroil  it  in  trouble  and  confusion:  and  that  when 
men  are  from  under  the  authority  imposing  them,  men  are  at 
their  own  liberty  again,  must  necessarily  be  granted,  because 
the  ground  of  restraint  of  that  liberty  was  the  authority  they 
were  under;  and  therefore  the  cause  being  taken  away,  the 
effects  follow.    Therefore  for  men  to  do  them  when  authority 
doth  not  impose  them,  must  imply  an  opinion  of  the  necessity 
of  the  things  themselves,  which  destroys  Christian  liberty. 
Whence  it  was  resolved  by  Jlugustine^  in  the  case  of  rites, 
that  every  one  should  observe  those  of  that  church  which  he 
was  in:  which  he  saith  he  took  from  Ambrose.     He  tells  us, 
"He  knew  no  better  course  for  a  serious  prudent  Christian  to 
take  in   matters  of  rites  and  customs,  than  to  follow  the 
church's  example  where  he  is;  for  whatsoever  is  observed 
neither  against  faith  nor  manners,  is  a  matter  in  itself  indif- 
ferent, and  to  be  observed  according  to  the  custom  of  those 
he   lives  among."^     And  afterwards  acquaints  us   that  his 
mother  coming  to  Milan  after  him,  and  finding  the  church 
there  not  to  observe  the  Saturday  fast  as  the  church  of  Rome 
did,  was  much  perplexed  and  troubled  in  her  mind  at  it,  (as 
tender,  but  weak  consciences  are  apt  to  be  troubled  at  any- 
thing contrary  to  their  own  practice);  she  for  her  own  satis- 
faction, sends  her  son  to  Ambrose,  then  bishop  of  the  church 
there,  who  told  him  he  would  give  him  no  other  answer  but 
what  he  did  himself,  and  if  he  knew  anything  better,  he 
would  do  it.     Augustine  presently  expects  a  command  from 
him  to  leave  off  Saturday  fasts:  instead  of  that,  Ambrose  tells 
him,  "When  I  am  at  Rome  I  fast  on  the  sabbath,  but  at 
Milan  I  do  not.     So  thou  likewise,  when  thou  comest  to  any 
church,  observe  its  custom,  if  thou  wouldst  neither  be  an 
offence  to  them,  nor  have  them  be  so  to  thee."^     A  rare  and 
excellent  example  of  the  piety,  prudence  and  moderation  of 
the  primitive  church;  far  from  rigidly  imposing  indifferent  cus- 
toms on  the  one  side;  or  from  contumacy  in  opposing  mere 

•  Aug.  eg.  118,  ad  Januar. 

2  Ncc  disciplina  ulla  in  his  raelior  gravi  prudentiquc  Christiaho,  quam  ut  eo 
tnodo  agat,  quo  agere  viderit  ecclesiam,  ad  quamcunque  forte  devenerit.  Quod 
enim  neque  contra  fidem,  neque  contra  bonos  mores  injungitur,  indiffcrenter  est 
habendum,  et  pro  eoruni  inter  quos  vivitur  societate  servandum  est. 

3  Cum  Romam  «enio,  jejuno,  sabbato;  cum  hie  sum,  non  jejuno;  sic  etiam  tu, 
ad  quam  forte  ecclesiam  veneris,  ejus  moreni  serva;  si  cuiquam  non  vis  esse 
scandalo,  nee  quanquam  tibi. 

12 


90  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

indifferences  on  the  other.  Which  judgment  of  Jimhrose, 
Sugustine,  saith,  he  always  looked  on  as  often  as  he  thought 
of  it,  tanquam  celeste  oraculum,  "as  an  oracle  come  from 
heaven;"  and  concludes  with  this  excellent  speech,  which  if 
ever  God  intend  peace  to  his  church,  he  will  make  men 
understand:  "  I  have  often,"' saith  he,  "found  it  to  my  grief 
and  sorrow,  that  the  troubles  of  weaker  Christians  have  been 
caused  by  the  contentious  obstinacy  of  some  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  superstitious  fearfulness  of  others  on  the  other,  in 
things  which  are  neither  determined  by  the  authority  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  nor  by  the  custom  of  the  universal  church, 
nor  yet  by  any  usefulness  of  the  things  themselves,  in  order 
to  the  making  men's  lives  better;  only  for  some  petty  reason 
in  a  man's  own  mind,  or  because  it  hath  been  the  custom  of 
their  country,  or  because  they  have  found  in  those  churches, 
which  they  have  thought  to  be  the  nearer  to  truth,  the  further 
they  have  been  from  home,  they  are  continually  raising  such 
quarrels  and  contentions,  that  they  think  nothing  is  right  and 
lawful,  but  what  they  do  themselves."^  Had  that  blessed 
saint  lived  in  our  age  he  could  not  have  uttered  anything 
more  true,  nor  more  pertinent  to  our  present  state:  which 
methinks  admirers  of  antiquity  should  embrace  for  its  autho- 
rity, and  others  for  its  great  truth  and  reason.  Did  we  but 
set  up  those  three  things  as  judges  between  us  in  our  matters 
of  ceremonies, —  The  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  the  prac- 
tice of  the  primtive  universal  church,  and  the  tendency  of 
them  to  the  reforming  men's  lives;  how  soon  might  we 
shake  hands,  and  our  controversies  be  at  an  end!  But  as 
long  as  contentious  obstinacy  remains  on  one  side,  and  a 
superstitious  fearfulness  on  the  other,  (for  superstition  may  as 
well  lie  in  the  imagined  necessity  of  avoiding  things  indiffer- 
ent, as  in  the  necessary  observing  of  things  which  are  not,)  we 
may  find  our  storms  increase,  but  we  are  not  likely  to  see  any 
land  of  peace.  How  happy  might  we  be,  did  men  but 
once  understand  that  it  was  their  duty  to  mind  the  things  of 
peace!  How  little  of  that  dust  might  calm  and  quiet  our 
most  contentious  quarrels! 

•  Sensi  enim  saepe  dolens  et  gemcns,  multas  infirmoruni  perturbationes  fieri  per 
quorundam  fratrum  contentiosam  obstinationem,  et  superstitiosam  timiditatem; 
qui  in  rebus  hujusmodi,  quas  neque  ScripturEB  sanctse  autoritate,  neque  universalis 
ccclesiffi  Iradilione,  neque  vitae  corrigendee  utilitatc  ad  cerium  possunt  terminuin 
pervenire  (perducere)  tantum  quia  subest  qualiscunque  ratiocinatio  eogitantis, 
aut  quia  in  sua,  ])alria.  sic  ipse  consuevit,  aut  quia  ibi  vidit  ubi  pcregrinationem 
suam  quo  remotiorem  a  suis,  eo  doctiorem  fuclam  putat,  tani  lilig-iosas  excitant 
quEBstiones  ut  nisi  quod  ipsi  faciunt,  niliil  rectum  existiment. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  9i> 

These  coniniotions  of  soul--,  and  iliusc  contests  so  great, 
With  the  sprinkling  of  a  little  dust,  are  at  rest.' 

But  in  order  to  so  happy  and  desirable  a  union  and  accom- 
modation, I  shall  not  need  to  plead  much  from  the  nature  of 
the  things  we  differ  about;  the  lownessof  them  in  comparison 
of  the  great  things  we  are  agreed  in,  the  fewness  of  them  in 
comparison  of  the  multitude  of  those  weighty  things  we  ought 
most  to  look  after,  the  benefits  of  union,  the  miseries  of  divi- 
sion, which  if  our  lamentable  experience  doth  not  tell  us  of, 
yet  our  consciences  may;  I  shall  crave  leave  humbly  to  pre- 
sent to  serious  consideration  some  proposals  for  accommoda- 
tion: which  is  an  attempt  that  nothing  but  an  earnest  desire 
for  peace  can  justify,  and  I  hope  that  will:  which  here  falls  in 
as  the  third  step  of  my  designed  discourse,  about  the  bounds 
to  be  set  in  the  restraint  of  Christian  liberty. 

§  11.  The  Jirsi  is,  that  nothing  be  imposed  as  necessary,  but 
what  is  clearly  revealed  in  the  word  of  God.  This  there  is 
tiie  highest  reason  and  equity  for,  since  none  can  have  com- 
mand immediately  over  conscience,  but  God  himself,  and 
whatever  is  imposed  as  necessary,  doth  immediately  bind 
conscience.  And  whatever  binds  men's  consciences  with  an 
opinion  of  the  necessity  of  it,  doth  immediately  destroy  that 
Christian  liberty  which  men  are  necessarily  bound  to  stand 
fast  in,  and  not  be  entangled  with  any  yoke  of  bondage.^  Not 
only  the  yoke  of  Jewish  ceremonies,  but  whatever  yoke 
pinches  and  galls  as  that  did,  with  an  opinion  of  the  necessity 
of  doing  the  thing  commanded  by  any  but  the  word  of  God. 
Which  the  apostle  calls  dogmatizing.^  "Let  no  man  judge 
you  in  meat  and  drink;"  these  impositions  he  calls  the  com- 
mandments and  doctrines  of  men.^  And  such  he  calls  a  snare, 
which  was  the  making  an  indifferent  thing,  as  celibacy,  neces- 
sary,^ "Any  thing  that  ought  to  be  free,  commanded  as  neces- 
sary, becomes  a  snare. "^  So  that  though  obedience  be  necessary 
to  indifferent  things  when  commanded;  yet  it  must  always  be 
libet'd  conscientid,  quoad  res  ipsas  legum,  "with  a  conscience 
free,  so  far  as  concerns  them  as  matters  of  law,"  no  obligation 
to  be  laid  upon  conscience  to  look  upon  the  things  as  neces- 
sary. 

Secondly,  That  nothing  be  required,  nor  determined,  but 

'  Hi  motus  animorum,  atque  haec  certamina  tanta 
Pulveris  exigui  jactu  compressa  quiescunt. 
2  Gal.  V.  1.  3  Coloss.  ii.  16,20. 

■s  Coloss.  ii.  22.  6  1  Corinth,  vii.  23. 

^  Laqucus  est  quicquid  praseipitur  iit  nccessariuni,  quod  liberum  esse  debet. 


92  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

what  is  sufficiently  known  to  be  indifferent  in  its  own  nature. 
The  former  proposal  was  in  reference  to  the  manner  of  im- 
posing, this  respects  the  nature  of  the  things  themselves.  The 
only  difficulty  here  is,  how  a  thing  may  be  sufficiently  known 
to  be  indifferent;  because  one  man  looks  upon  that  as  indif- 
ferent, which  another  doth  not.  The  most  equal  way  to  de- 
cide this  controversy,  is  to  make  choice  of  such  judges  as  are 
not  interested  in  the  qiiarrel:  and  those  are  the  se7ise  of  the 
primitive  church  in  the  first  four  centuries,  who  were  best 
able  to  judge  whether  they  looked  upon  themselves  as  bound 
by  any  command  of  scripture  or  not;  and  withal  the  judgment 
of  the  reformed  churches:  so  that  what  shall  be  made  appear 
to  be  left  indifferent,  by  both  the  sense  of  the  primitive  church, 
and  the  churches  of  the  reformation,  may  be  a  matter  deter- 
minable by  law,  and  to  which  all  may  be  required  to  conform 
in  obedience. 

Thirdli/,  Tha.t  whatever  is  thus  determined  be  in  order  only 
to  a  due  performance  of  what  is  in  general  required  in  the 
word  of  God,  and  not  to  be  looked  on  as  any  part  of  divine 
worship  or  service.  This  is  that  which  gives  the  greatest 
occasion  of  offence  to  men's  consciences,  when  anything  is 
either  required;  or  if  not,  yet  generally  used  and  looked  on  as 
a  necessary  part  or  concomitant  of  God's  worship,  so  that 
without  it  the  worship  is  deemed  imperfect.  And  there  is 
great  difference  to  be  made  between  things  indifferent  in  their 
own  nature,  and  indifferent  as  to  their  use  and  practice.  And 
when  the  generality  of  those  who  use  them  do  not  use  them 
as  indifferent,  but  as  necessary  things,  it  ought  to  be  consi- 
dered, whether  in  this  case  such  a  use  be  allowable  till  men 
be  better  informed  of  the  nature  of  the  things  they  do.  As  in 
the  case  of  the  papists  about  image-worship,  their  divines  say, 
that  the  images  are  only  as  high  teners  of  devotion,  but  the 
worship  is  fixed  on  God;  but  we  find,  it  is  quite  otherwise  in 
the  general  practice  of  people  who  look  at  nothing  beyond  the 
image.  So  it  may  be,  abating  the  degrees  of  the  offence, 
when  matters  of  indifferency  in  themselves  are  by  the  gene- 
rality of  people  not  looked  on  as  such,  but  used  as  a  necessary 
part  of  divine  service.  And  it  would  be  considered  whether 
such  an  abuse  of  matters  supposed  indifferent  being  known,  it 
be  not  scandalum  datum  to  continue  their  use  without  an 
effectual  remedy  for  the  abuse  of  them. 

Fourthly,  That  no  sanctions  be  made,  nor  mulcts  nor  penal- 
ties be  inflicted  on  such  who  only  dissent  from  the  use  of 
some  things  whose  lawfulness  they  at  present  scruple,  till 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  93 

sufficient  time  and  means  be  used  for  their  information  of  the 
nature  and  inditferency  of  the  things,  that  it  may  be  seen 
whether  it  be  out  of  wilful  contempt  and  obstinacy  of  spirit, 
or  only  weakness  of  conscience  and  dissatisfaction  concerning 
the  things  themselves  that  they  disobey.  And  if  it  be  made 
evident  to  be  out  of  contempt,  that  only  such  penalties  be 
inflicted  as  answers  to  the  nature  of  the  offence;  I  am  sure 
it  is  contrary  to  the  primitive  practice,  and  the  moderation 
then  used,  to  suspend  or  deprive  men  of  their  ministerial 
function  for  not  conforming  in  habits,  gestures,  or  the  like. 
Concerning  habits,  Walufridus  Strabo  expressly  tells  us, 
there  was  no  distinction  of  habits  used  in  the  church  in  the 
primitive  times.^  "Clerical  robes  through  all  their  grada- 
tions, were  enriched  to  that  liabit,  which  is  now  worn.  But 
in  the  earliest  times  the  clergy  clad  in  the  common  vest- 
ment celebrated  the  mass,  as  certain  in  the  oriental  churches 
to  the  present  are  reported  to  do."^  And  therefore  the 
Concilium  Gayigrense,  "  the  council  at  Gangra,"  condemned 
Eustathius  Sebasienus^  for  making  a  necessity  of  diversity 
of  habits  among  Christians  for  their  profession,  Sii  ■trjv  asxrjaiv, 
"for  their  profession  or  order,"  it  being  acknowledged  both 
by  Salmasius'*  and  his  great  adversary  Petavius;  that  in 
primitive  times  the  presbyters  did  not  necessarily  wear 
any  distinct  habit  from  the  people,  although  the  former  en- 
deavours to  prove,  that  commonly  they  did  in  Tertullian'' s 
time;  but  yet  that  not  all  the  presbyters,  nor  they  only  did 
use  a  distinct  habit,  viz.  the  pallium  philosophicum,  "  the 
philosophic  cloak,"  but  all  the  Christians  who  did  axpijSus 
xe.M^i-O'Vi.ln.v,  "strictly  christianize,"  as  Socrates  said  of  Sylva- 
nus  Rhetor ^^  all  that  were  daxr]tav,  "  the  ascetics,  or  stricter 
professors  of  Christianity,"  among  them,  stricter  professors  of 
Christianity;  among  which  most  of  the  presbyters  were.  And 
Origen  in  Eusebius^  expressly  speaks  of  Heraclas  a  presbyter 
of  Alexandria,  that  for  a  long  time  xoiv^  saOrifv  x^^f^^evo^,  "  he 
used  only  the  common  garment,"  belonging  to  Christians,  and 
put  on  the  palliimi  philosophicum  for  the  study  of  the  Gre- 
cian learning,  after  that  Christianity  began  to  lose  in  height 

'  De  rebus  Eccles.  cap.  14. 

2  Vestes  sacerdotales  per  incrcmenta  ad  euin;  qui  nunc  Iiabetur,  auclae  sunt 
ornatum.  Nam  primis  tcmporibus  cornmuni  vestiinento  induli,  missas  agebant, 
sicut  et  hactenus  quidam  orientalium  facere  pcrhibontur. 

3  Can.  14,  in  Cod.  Can.  in  Yin.  Eccles.  can.  71. 

4  Salai.  Nat.  in  Tertui.  de  Palteo.  76. 

5  Ant.  Cercoclliius  in  Salmas.  p.  12. 
^  Euseb.  lib.  G,  cap.  20. 


94  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

what  it  got  in  breadth:  instead  of  the  former  simphcity  of 
their  garments  as  well  as  manners,  and  their  ■t^ijiuvia,  "  the 
monk's  robe,"  came  in  the  use  of  the  bi/rri,  "the  scarlet 
gowns,"  penulx  Dahnaticse,  "Dalmatian  cloaks,"  and  so 
daily  increasing,  as  Strabo  saith.  I  say  not  this  in  the  least 
to  condemn  any  distinction  of  habit  for  mere  decency  and 
order,  but  to  show  it  was  not  the  custom  of  the  primitive 
times  to  impose  any  necessity  of  these  things  upon  men,  nor 
to  censure  them  for  bare  disuse  of  them.  He  must  be  a  great 
stranger  in  the  primitive  church  that  takes  not  notice  of  the 
great  diversity  of  rites  and  customs  used  in  particular  churches, 
without  any  censuring  those  who  differed  from  them;  or  if 
any  by  any  inconsiderate  zeal  did  proceed  so  far,  how  ill  it 
was  resented  by  other  Christians.  As  Victor^ s  excommuni- 
cating the  quarto-decimani,  "the  advocates  for  the  fourteenth 
day,"  for  which  he  is  so  sharply  reproved  by  Irenseus^  who 
tells  him,  that  the  primitive  Christians  who  differed  in  such 
things,  did  not  use  to  abstain  from  one  another's  communion 

for   them;    xat  yag   ot  t's^j  ovT'iJj   Jtis-teos  ovtB(,  Sia^avovgi;  rts^i,   ifa  s^tj 

«s^oj  kavtts^;  as  Socrates  tells  us,  "  those  that  agree  in  the  same 
faith,  may  differ  among  themselves  in  their  rites  and  cus- 
toms,^' as  he  largely  shows  in  a  whole  chapter  to  that  pur- 
pose; as,  in  the  observation  of  ^«5^er,  some  on  the  fourteenth 
day  of  April,  others  only  upon  the  Lord's  day,  but  some  of 
the  more  eastern  churches  differed  from  both.  In  their  fasts, 
some  observed  Lent  but  for  one  day,  some  two,  some  three 
weeks,  some  six  weeks,  others  seven:  and  in  their  fasts  some 
abstained  from  all  kinds  of  living  creatures,  others  only  from 
flesh,  eating  fish,  and  others  fowl:  others  abstained  from  fruit 
and  eggs:  others  eat  only  dry  bread,  others  not  that  either. 
And  so  for  their  public  assemblies;  some  communicating  every 
Lord's  day,  others  not.  The  church  of  Alexandria  had  its 
public  meetings  and  sermons  every  fourth  day  of  the  week,  as 
he  tells  us.  The  same  church  made  the  public  readers  and 
interpreters,  either  of  the  catechumens,  or  of  the  baptized,  dif- 
fering therein  from  all  otiier  churches.  Several  customs  were 
used  about  digamy,  "  or  marriage  to  a  second  wife  after  the 
death  of  the  first,"  and  the  marriage  of  ministers  in  several 
churches.  So  about  the  time  of  baptism,  some  having  only 
one  set  time  in  the  year  for  it,  as  at  Easter  in  Thessaly; 
others  two,  Easter,  and  Dominica  in  Mhis,  so  called  from  the 
"  white  garments"  of  the  baptized.   Some  churches  in  baptism 

'  Euscb.  1.  5.     Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  I.  .5,  c.  23. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  93 

used  three  dippings;  others  only  one.  Great  differences  about 
the  time  of  their  being  catechumens,  in  some  places  longer, 
in  others  a  shorter  time.  So  about  the  excommunicated, 
and  degrees  of  penance,  (as  they  are  called,)  their  Flenies, 
audienics,  siiccumbeiites,  consistcntes,  the  communio  pere- 
grinx,  "weeping,  listening,  bending,  standing,  the  communion 
of  a  stranger,"  the  several  chrisms  in  vertice,  in  pectore, 
"on  the  head,  on  the  breast,"  in  some  places  at  baptism,  in 
some  after.  So  for  placing  the  altar  (as  they  metaphorically 
called  the  communion  table),  it  was  not  constantly  towards 
the  east;  for  Socrates^  affirms,  that  in  the  great  church  at 
Jintiochia,  it  stood  to  the  west  end  of  the  church;  and  there- 
fore it  had  avtii;^o^ov  Otaw,  "a  different  position"  from  other 
churches.  And  Eusebuis^  saith  out  of  the  panegyrist,  that  in 
the  new  church  built  by  Paulinus  at  Tyre,  the  altar  stood 
iv  fisecp,  "  in  the  middle."  These  things  may  suffice  for  a  taste 
at  present,  of  which  more  largely  elsewhere  (God  willing)  in 
due  time.  We  see  the  primitive  Christians  did  not  make  so 
much  of  any  uniformity  in  rites  and  ceremonies;  nay  I  scarce 
think  any  churches  in  the  primitive  times  can  be  produced, 
that  did  exactly  in  all  things  observe  the  same  customs:  which 
might  especially  be  an  argument  of  moderation  in  all,  as  to 
these  things,  but  especially  in  pretended  admirers  of  the  primi- 
tive church.  I  conclude  with  a  known  saying  of  Jiustin, 
"  It  is  an  unworthy  thing  for  Christians  to  condemn  and  judge 
one  another  for  those  things  which  do  not  further  us  at  all  in 
our  way  to  Heaven."^ 

Lastly,  That  religion  be  not  clogged  with  ceremonies.  They 
when  multiplied  too  much,  if  lawful,  yet  strangely  eat  out  the 
heart,  heat,  life,  vigour  of  Christianity.  Christian  religion  is 
a  plain,  simple,  easy  thing;  Christ  commends  his  yoke  to  us 
by  the  easiness  of  it,  and  his  burden  by  the  lightness  of  it. 
It  was  an  excellent  testimony  which  Amm.  Marcellinus  a 
heathen  gave  to  Christianity,  when  speaking  of  Constantius, 
"That  he  spoiled  the  beauty  of  Christianity,  by  muffling  it 
up  in  old  womanish  superstition."-*  And  it  is  as  true  which 
Erasmus  said  in  answer  to  the  Sorbonists,  "  We  turn  back 
to  Judaism  by  so  much  as  we  cleave  to  external  ceremonies;"* 

>  Cap.  23, 1.  5.  ^  Eccles.  Hist.  1.  10,  cap.  4. 

3  Indignum  est  ut  propter  ea  quae  nos  Deo  neque  digniores,  neque  indigniores 
possunt  facerc,  alii  alios  vel  condemncmus,  vel  judicemus. 

*  Reiigionein  Christianam  rem  absolutam  et  simplicem  anili  superstitione 
confudit. 

5  Qud  inagis  in  corporalibus  ceremoniis  IiEeremus,  lioc  magis  vergimus  ad 
Judaismum.— Eras,  in  dcclar.  ad  Cens.  Paris,  art.  14. 


96  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

which  is  fully  proved  as  to  the  Papists,  by  our  learned  Rain- 
olds  and  Mr.  De  Croy:^  but  we  need  no  further  evidence  than 
a  bare  perusal  of  Durandus  Mimatensis  his  Rationale  Divi- 
norum  officiorum.  By  ceremonies,  I  mean  not  here  matters 
of  mere  decency  and  order,  for  order's  sake;  which  doubtless 
are  lawful,  (if  the  measure  of  that  order  be  not  the  pomp  and 
glory  of  the  world,  but  the  gravity,  composure,  sobriety,  which 
becomes  Christianity,)  for  when  the  Jews  were  the  most  strictly 
tied  up  by  a  ceremonial  law,  they  did  introduce  many  things 
upon  the  account  of  order  and  decency:  as  the  building  syna- 
gogues, their  hours  of  prayer,  their  Parashoth  and  Haphta- 
roth,  "Me  sections  of  the  law  and  prophets  f^  the  continuation 
of  the  passover  fourteen  days  by  Hezekiah,  when  the  law 
required  but  seven:  the  feast  of  Purim,  or  "of  lots"  by  Esther 
and  Mordecai:  the  fasts  of  the  fourth,  fifth,  and  tenth  month 
under  the  captivity;  the  feast  of  dedication  by  the  Maccabees. 
The  use  of  baptism  in  proselyting,  washing  the  feet  before  the 
passover,  imitated  and  practised  by  our  Saviour:  so  that  mat- 
ters of  order  and  decency  are  allowable  and  fitting;  but  cere- 
monies properly  taken  for  actions  significative,  and  therefore 
appointed  because  significative,  their  lawfulness  may  with 
better  ground  be  scrupled.  Or,  taking  ceremony,  in  Bellar- 
mine's  description  of  it,  to  be  "  an  external  act,  which  is  not 
otherwise  good  and  commendable,  except  it  refers  to  the  wor- 
ship of  God;"^  in  this  sense  it  will  be  hard  to  manifest  any 
thing  to  be  lawful,  but  what  is  founded  upon  a  divine  precept; 
if  it  be  not  a  matter  of  order,  and  so  no  ceremony.  And  as 
for  significative  ceremonies,  concerning  matter  of  doctrine  or 
fact,  a  learned  doctor^  puts  us  in  mind  of  the  old  rule,  that 
they  be  paucBS  et  salubres,  "few  and  wholesome:"  for  as 
he  observes  from  Aristotle  in  insectile  animals,  the  want  of 
blood  was  the  cause  they  run  out  into  so  many  legs.  I  shall 
conclude  this  whole  discourse  with  another  speech  of  St.  Aus- 
tin, very  pertinent  to  our  present  purpose.-*  "All  such  things 
which  are  neither  founded  on  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures, 

1  Cons,  with  Hart.  chap,  viii,  Div.  8.     De  Croy  3,  Conformity,  part  2. 

2  Actio  externa,  quae  non  aliunde  est  bona  and  laudabihs,  nisi  quia  fit  ad  Deum 
colendum. — De  Sacrara.  lib.  2,  c.  29. 

3  Dr.  Ham,  of  Superstition,  sect.  39. 

4  Omnia  itaque  talia  quae  neque  sanctarum  scripturarum  autoritatibus  conti- 
nenlur,  nee  in  conciliis  episcoporum  statuta  inveniuntur,  nee  consuetudine  uni- 
versse  ecclesiae  roborata  sunt,  sed,  diversorum  locorum  diversis  moribus  innu- 
merabiliter  variantur,  ita  ut  vix  aut  omnino  nunquam,  inveniri  possint  causae, 
quas  in  eis  instituendis  seeuti  sunt  homines,  ubi  facultas  tribuitur,  sine  ulla  dubi- 
latione  resecanda  exislimo. — Ep.  119,  ad  Jan.  cap.  19. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  97 

nor  determined  by  general  councils,  (for  so  he  must  be  under- 
stood,) nor  practised  by  the  catholic  church,  but  vary  accord- 
ing to  the  customs  of  places,  of  which  no  rational  account  can 
be  given;  as  soon  as  men  have  power  to  do  it,  I  judge  them  to 
be  cut  off  without  any  scruple:"  for  which  definitive  sentence 
of  his,  he  gives  this  most  sufficient  reason;  "  For  although 
we  cannot  positively  say,  how  such  things  as  these  do  mani- 
festly impugn  our  faith,  yet  in  that  they  load  our  religion  with 
such  servile  burdens,  (which  the  mercy  of  God  hath  left  free 
for  all  other  observations,  but  the  celebration  of  some  few  and 
most  clear  sacraments,)  that  they  make  our  condition  worse 
than  that  of  the  Jews;  for  they,  although  strangers  to  gospel 
liberty,  had  no  burdens  charged  upon  them  by  the  constitu- 
tions of  men,  but  only  by  the  law  and  commands  of  God:"^ 
which  sentence  and  reason  of  his,  I  leave  to  the  most  impar- 
tial judgment  of  every  true  sober-minded  Christian.  And 
thus  I  am  at  last  come  through  this  field  of  thorns  and  thistles; 
I  hope  now  to  find  my  way  more  plain  and  easy.  So  much 
for  the  fourth  hypothesis.  The  two  next  will  be  discharged 
with  less  trouble. 

§  12.  Hypoth.  5.  What  is  left  undetermined  both  by  divine 
positive  laws,  and  by  principles  deduced  from  the  natural 
laiL\  if  it  be  determined  by  lawful  authority  in  the  church 
of  God,  doth  bind  the  consciences  of  those  ivho  are  subject  to 
that  authority,  to  obedience  to  those  determinations.  I  here 
suppose,  that  the  matter  of  the  law  be  something  not  prede- 
termined, either  by  the  law  of  nature,  or  divine  positive  laws, 
for  against  either  of  these  no  human  law  can  bind  the  con- 
science: for  if  there  be  any  moral  evil  in  the  thing  commanded, 
we  are  bound  to  obey  God  rather  than  men;  in  which  case, 
we  do  not  formally  and  directly  disobey  the  magistrate,  but 
we  choose  to  obey  God  before  him.  And,  as  we  have  already 
observed,  a  former  obligation  from  God  or  nature  destroys  a 
latter;  because  God  hath  a  greater  power  and  authority  over 
men's  consciences,  than  any  human  authority  can  have:  and 
my  obedience  to  the  magistrate  being  founded  upon  a  divine 
law,  it  must  be  supposed  my  duty  to  obey  him  first,  by  virtue 
of  whose  authority  I  obey  another;  then,  the  other  whom  I 
obey,  because  the  former  hath  commanded   me.     If  I  am 

'  Quamvis  enim  neque  hoc  inveniri  possit,  quomodo  contra  fidem  sint;  ipsam 
tamcn  religionem  (quam  paucissimis  et  manifcstissimis  celebrationem  sacra- 
mentis  misericordia  Dei  liberam  esse  voluit)  servilibus  oneribus  premunt,  ut 
tolcrabilior  sit  conditio  Judseorum,  qui  etiamsi  tempus  libertatis  non  agnoverint, 
Icgalibus  tamen  sarcinis,  non  humanis  preesuniptionibus  subjiciuntur. 
13 


96  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

bound  to  obey  an  inferior  magistrate,  because  the  supreme 
requires  it:  if  the  inferior  command  me  anything  contrary  to 
the  will  and  law  of  the  supreme,  1  am  not  bound  to  obey  him 
in  it,  because  both  he  derives  his  power  of  commanding,  and 
I  my  obligation  to  obedience,  from  the  authority  of  the  su- 
preme, which  must  be  supposed  to  do  nothing  against  itself. 
So  it  is  between  God  and  the  supreme  magistrate;  6y  him 
kings  reign;  God,  when  he  gives  them  a  legislative  power, 
doth  ii  cumulative  non  privativh,  "abundantly  not  priva- 
tively,"  not  so  as  to  deprive  himself  of  it,  nor  his  own  laws  of 
a  binding  force  against  his;  so  that  no  law  of  a  magistrate  can 
in  reason  bind  against  a  positive  law  of  God.  But  what  is 
enacted  by  a  lawful  magistrate,  in  things  left  undetermined  by 
God's  laws,  doth  even  by  virtue  of  them  bind  men  to  obe- 
dience, which  require  subjection  to  the  higher  powers /oy  co7i- 
scie7ice  sake}  So  that  whatsoever  is  left  indifferent,  obedience 
to  the  magistrate  in  things  indifferent  is  not:  and  if  we  are 
not  bound  to  obey  in  things  undetermined  by  the  word,  I 
would  fain  know  wherein  we  are  bound  to  obey  them;  or 
what  distinct  power  of  obligation  belongs  to  the  authority  the 
magistrate  hath  over  men?  For  all  other  things  we  are  bound 
to  already  by  former  laws;  therefore  either  there  must  be  a 
distinct  authority  without  power  to  oblige,  or  else  we  are  ef- 
fectually bound  to  whatsoever  the  magistrate  doth  determine 
in  lawful  things.  And  if  it  be  so  in  general,  it  must  be  so  as 
to  all  particulars  contained  in  that  general,  and  so  in  reference 
to  matters  of  the  church,  unless  we  suppose  all  things  con- 
cerning it  to  be  already  determined  in  Scripture:  which  is  the 
thing  in  question,  and  shall  be  largely  discussed  in  its  due 
place. 

§  13.  Sixthly.  Hypoth  6.  Things  undetermined  by  the 
divine  law,  natural  and  positive,  and  actually  determined 
by  lawful  authority,  are  not  thereby  made  unalterable,  but 
•may  be  revoked,  limited,  and  changed,  according  to  the  dif- 
ferent ages,  tempers,  inclinations  of  men,  by  the  same  power 
which  did  determine  them.  All  human  constitutions  are  re- 
versible by  the  same  power  which  made  them:  for  the  obliga- 
tion of  them,  not  arising  from  the  matter  of  them,  but  from 
the  authority  of  the  person  binding,  is  consequently  alterable, 
as  shall  be  judged  by  that  power  most  suitable  to  the  ends  of 
its  first  promulgation.  Things  may  so  much  alter,  and  times 
change,  that  what  was  a  likely  way  to  keep  men  in  unity  and 

>  Rom.  xiii.  5. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  9^9 

obedience  at  one  time  may  only  enrage  them  at  another.  The 
same  pliysic  which  may  at  one  time  cure,  may  at  another 
only  aggravate  the  distemper.  As  therefore  the  skill  of  a 
physician  lies  most  in  the  application  of  physic  to  the  several 
tempers  of  his  patients:  so  a  wise  magistrate,  who  is,  as  Nicias 
said  in  Thucydides^  rco'Ksui  xoxwj  ^ovxsvo/x.svt^^  lat^o^,  "  the  phy- 
sician to  cure  the  distempers  of  the  body  politiCf'^^  and  con- 
siders (as  Spartian  tells  us  Adrian  used  to  say  in  the  senate, 
"  that  he  would  so  conduct  the  commonwealth,  that  it  should 
know  that  the  state  was  the  people's,  not  his  own),"^  will  see 
a  necessity  of  altering,  reforming,  varying  many  human  con- 
stitutions, according  as  they  shall  tend  most  to  the  ends  of 
government,  either  in  church  or  state.  Thence  it  is  said  of 
the  several  laws  of  nature,  divine  aj^d  human,  that  "  the  law 
of  nature  may  be  laid  down,  (as  in  case  of  marriage  with  sis- 
ters in  the  beginningof  the  world,)  but  not  laid  aside;  the  law 
of  God  can  neither  be  laid  down,  nor  laid  aside;  but  human 
laws,  both  may  be  laid  down,  and  laid  aside."^  Indeed, 
the  laws  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  are  said  to  be  unal- 
terable,'* but  (if  it  be  meant  in  the  sense  commonly  under- 
stood,) yet  that  very  law  which  made  them  unalterable  (for 
they  were  not  so  of  their  own  nature),  was  an  alterable  law, 
and  so  was  whatever  did  depend  upon  it.  I  conclude  then, 
whatever  is  the  subject  of  human  determination,  may  lawfully 
be  altered  and  changed,  according  to  the  wisdom  and  prudence 
of  those  in  whose  hands  the  care  of  the  public  is.  Thus  then, 
as  those  things  which  are  either  of  natural  or  christian  liberty, 
are  subjected  to  human  laws  and  restraints,  so  those  laws  are 
not  irreversible;  but  if  the  fences  be  thrown  down  by  the 
same  authority  which  set  them  up,  whatever  was  thereby  in- 
closed, returns  to  the  community  of  natural  right.  So  much 
for  these  hypotheses,  which  I  have  been  the  longer  in  explain- 
ing and  establishing,  because  of  the  great  influence  they  may 
have  upon  our  present  peace,  and  the  near  concernment  they 
have  to  this  whole  discourse,  the  whole  fabric  of  which  is 
erected  upon  these  foundations. 

'  Hist.  lib.  6.  Spartian.  in  Adriano. 

2  Ita  se  rempub.  gestarum,  ut  sciret  populi  rem  esse,  non  piopriam. 

3  Lex  naturae  potest  poiii,  sed  non  deponi,  lex  divina  nee  poni  nee  deponi,  lex 
humana  et  poni  et  deponi. 

*  Dan.  vi.  8. 


100  THK  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 


CHAPTER  III. 

How  far  Church  Government  is  founded  upon  the  Law  of  Nature.  Two  things 
in  it  founded  thereon.  1.  That  there  must  be  a  society  of  men  for  the  worship 
of  God.  2.  That  this  society  be  governed  in  the  most  convenient  manner.  A 
society  for  worship  manifested,  Gen.  iv.  26,  considered.  The  sons  of  God,  and 
the  sons  of  men,  who?  Societies  for  worship  among  Heathens  evidenced  by 
three  things.  1.  Solemnity  of  Sacrifices;  Sacrificing,  how  far  natural;  the 
antiquity  of  the  Feast  of  first  fruits,  largely  discovered.  2.  The  original  of 
festivals  for  the  honour  of  their  Deities.  3.  The  secrecy  and  solemnity  of 
their  mysteries.  This  further  proved  from  man's  sociable  nature,  the  improve- 
ment of  it  by  Religion,  the  honour  redounding  to  God  by  such  a  society  for 
his  worship. 

§  1.  Having  now  laid  our  foundation,  we  proceed  to  raise 
a  superstructure  upon  it.  And  we  now  come  closely  to  in- 
quire how  far  government  in  the  church  is  founded  upon  an 
unalterable  divine  right?  That  we  have  found  to  be  built 
upon  a  double  foundation,  the  dictates  of  the  law  of  nature, 
and  divine  positive  laios.  We  shall  impartially  inquire  into 
both  of  them,  and  see  how  far  church  government  is  settled 
upon  either  of  these  two.  I  begin  then  with  the  law  of  nature. 
Two  general  things,  I  conceive,  are  of  an  unalterable  divine 
righ^  in  reference  to  this:  First,  Ma^  there  be  a  society  and 
joining  together  of  men  for  the  ivorship  of  God:  Secondly, 
that  this  society  be  governed,  preserved,  and,  maintained  in 
the  most  convenient  manner.  First,  that  there  must  be  a 
society  of  men  joining  together  for  the  worship  of  God.  For 
the  dictate  of  nature  being  common  to  all,  that  God  must  be 
served,  nature  requires  some  kind  of  mutual  society  for  the 
joint  performance  of  their  common  duties.  An  evidence  of 
which  dictate  of  nature  appears  in  the  first  mention  we  find 
of  any  public  society;  so  that  a  society  for  religious  worship 
was  as  ancient  as  the  first  civil  societies  we  have  any  records 
of  Nay,  the  very  first  public  society  we  read  of,  was  gathered 
upon  this  account.     For  we  read  in  the  ^ early  days  of  the 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  KTl 

world  that  the  charter  for  this  society  was  soon  made  use  of, 
Gen.  iv.  26.  In  the  days  of  Enos  men  began  to  call  upon 
the  name  of  the  Lord.  Now  Enos  was  Seth's  son,  whom 
Jldam,  had  given  in  the  place  of  Jlhel,  and  as  soon  as  the 
number  of  men  did  increase,  that  men  grew  into  societies, 
they  then  had  their  public  societies  for  God's  worship.  For 
we  cannot  understand  that  passage  absolutely,  as  though  God 
had  not  been  called  on  before;  but  now  he  was  called  on  more 
signally  and  solemnly;  when  men  were  increased  that  they 
began  to  embody  themselves  into  societies,  Ccepit  congregare 
popidum,  ad  tractandum.  simul Dei  cultum,  "they  began  to 
collect  the  people  to  exercise  together  the  worship  of  God,'* 
saith  Pererius.  Tunc  coeptum  est  populariter  coli  Dens, 
"  then  it  was  commenced  that  God  was  publicly  worshipped," 
Mariana.  Invocare,  to  invoke,  i.  e.  palam  colere,  openly  to 
worship,  Emanuel  Sa.  relating  to  all  the  public  societies 
being  then  gathered  for  the  worship  of  the  true  God.  From 
which  time  in  all  probability  did  commence  that  title  of 
those  who  joined  in  those   societies   that  they  were  called 

D'Snh 'J3  "the  sons  of  God,"  which  we  read  of  soon  after; 

Gen.  vi.  2,  as  they  are  distinguished  from  the  -12  dinh 

"  sons  of  men:"  which  titles  I  am  far  from  understanding  in 
the  sense  of  the  fathers,  taking  them  for  the  angels,  (which, 
probably,  they  took  from  the  piece  going  under  the  name  of 
Enoch's  prophesy);  so  I  cannot  understand  them  as  commonly 
they  are  taken,  for  mere  discretive  titles  of  the  posterity  of 
Seth  and  Cain;  as  though  all  that  came  of  Seth  were  sons  of 
God,  and  all  of  Cain  were  the  sons  of  men.  For  as  there 
certainly  were  many  bad  of  Seth's  posterity,  because  the  flood 
destroyed  all  of  them,  Noah  only  and  his  family  excepted:  so 
there  might  be  some  good  of  the  other,  vice  iDeing  no  more 
entailed  than  virtue  is;  and  jewels  may  sometimes  lie  in  a 
dunghill:  and  so  this  name  of  the  sons  of  God  might  be  appro- 
priated to  those  who  joined  themselves  to  those  societies  for 
God's  worship.  In  which  sense  some  understand  the  very 
words  of  the  text  mn'  Dtyn  nidS  bn^n  the^i  men  began  to  be 
called  by  the  name  of  the  Lord:  which  I  suppose  is  the  sense 
of  Aquila^  who  thus  renders  the  place,  ion  rj^xOn  -tov  xaXft^ac  • 
iv  ovo^ai'i  Ki;^ioD,  "  then  it,"  (the  custom,)  "  began  to  be  called 
by  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  although  it  be  brought  by  Dionys. 
Vossius  to  justify  the  former  interpretation  of  the  words. 
This  sense,  if  the  construction  of  the  words  will  bear  it  (which 

'  Not.  in  Maim,  de  Idol.  c.  i.  sect.  1. 


102  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

Drusius^  questions,  but  others  are  much  for  it,  and  Theodoret, 
the  French,  and  Piscator  so  render  it)  seems  most  genuine 
and  natural;  and  not  at  all  impugning  what  I  have  formerly 
gathered  from  the  words,  but  implying  it;  for  this  distinction 
of  names  and  tiles  did  argue  a  distinction  of  societies  among 
them.  I  am  not  ignorant  that  the  generality  of  Jewish  expo- 
sitors and  many  of  their  followers,  do  carry  the  sense  of  the 
words  quite  another  way,  from  the  ambiguity  of  the  significa- 
tion of  bnin  which  may  be  interpreted  as  well  "to  profane  as 
begin,"  and  so  they  read  it  tunc  prophanatum  est  ad  invo- 
candum  nomen  Domini,  "  then  men  profaned  the  name  of 
the  Lord:"  and  accordingly  Maimonides^  begins  idolatry  li'UN 
'D"3  from  the  days  of  Enos.  But  the  words  will  scarce  bear 
this  construction,  as  Vossius  observes;  and  besides  there  is  no 
mention  at  all  of  the  name  of  any  false  gods,  but  only  of  the 
true  one.  So  much  then  for  the  first  original  of  this  society 
for  religion,  which  we  see  began  as  soon  as  there  was  matter 
to  compose  a  society.  Some  indeed  derive  this  society  a  great 
deal  higher;  and  because  we  read^  that  ^bel  and  Cain  brought 
their  sacrifices,  they  thence  infer,  that  it  was  to  Adam,  v/ho 
was  the  public  priest  then,  and  performed  all  public  duties  of 
worship  in  his  own  person,  and  so  was  indeed  oecumenical 
bishop  of  the  whole  world,  and  yet  had  but  four  persons  or 
but  few  more  for  his  charge.  Such  a  diocess  we  might  be 
content  to  allow  him  that  pleads  for  the  same  office,  and  de- 
rives his  title  somewhat  higher  than  Adam;  for  Pope  Boni- 
face the  eighth  proved  there  must  be  but  one  chief  priest,  and 
so  one  pope,  because  it  is  said,  Ge7i.  i.  1,  that  God  created  the 
world  in  jirincipio,  not  in  princpiis,'^  mark  the  number;  there- 
fore there  must  be  but  "  one  beginning,"  and  so  one  bishop, 
and  not  many.  What  excellent  disputants  an  infallible  chair 
makes  men!     Much  good  may  his  argument  do  him. 

§  2.  As  a  further  evidence,  how  much  nature  dictates  that 
such  a  society  there  should  be  for  Divine  worship,  we  shall 
inquire  into  the  practice  of  men  in  their  dispersion  after  the 
flood.  And  what  we  find  unanimously  continued  among 
them,  under  such  gross  idolatry  as  they  were  given  to,  and 
which  did  arise  not  from  their  idolatry  as  such,  but  from  the 
general  nature  of  it  as  a  kind  of  worship,  we  have  reason  to 

1  V.  Chamier:  Panstrat.  Calh.  torn.  2,  1.  9,  e.  9,  s.  9.  Amam.  An.  tib.  Bibl.  1.  2, 
p.  228. 

2  V.  Selden.  de  Diis  Syris  Proleg.  p.  28,  <fc  44.     Abodazara,  cap.  i. 

3  Birtram.  de  Polit.  Jud.  cap.  2,  p.  12.  Franz.  Sch.  Sacrif.  disp.  2.  Coppenb. 
Sch.  Sacrif.  p.  14. 

^  In  the  beginning,  not  in  beginnings. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  103 

look  upon  as  one  of  those  planks  which  hath  escaped  th6 
common  shipwreck  of  human  nature  by  the  fall  of  man.  And 
so  though  that  argument  from  the  general  consent  of  nations 
owning  a  way  of  worship  though  a  false  one,  in  order  to  the 
proving  the  existence  of  God  be  slighted  by  some,^  yet  there 
is  this  double  evidence  to  prove  it,  more  than  is  generally 
taken  notice  of,  and  beyond  the  bare  testimony  itself  given  by 
that  consent.  First,  From  men's  being  so  easily  imposed 
upon  by  false  religions,  in  that  they  are  so  soon  gulled  into 
idolatry;  it  argues  there  are  some  jewels  in  the  world,  or  else 
men  would  never  be  deceived  with  counterfeits;  it  argues  that 
a  child  who  hath  a  father,  is  ready  to  call  every  one  that 
comes  to  him,  father;  so  it  argues  there  is  some  natural  instinct 
in  men  towards  the  worship  of  God,  when  men  are  so  easily 
brought  to  worship  other  things  instead  of  God.  We  see  no 
other  creatures  can  be  so  imposed  upon;  we  read  of  no  idola- 
try among  the  brutes,  nor  that  the  bees  though  they  have  a 
king  and  honour  him,  did  ever  bow  their  knees  to  Baal,  or 
worship  the  hive  instead  of  him.  If  men  had  no  journeys  to 
go,  others  need  not  be  sworn  as  the  Jlthenians  were,  not  to 
put  them  out  of  their  way.  If  there  were  no  inclinableness  to 
religion,  all  cautions  against  idolatry  were  superfluous,  there 
is  then  from  men's  proneness  to  error,  as  to  the  person  and 
object  of  worship,  an  evidence  of  natural  oe,m->  "  instincV^ 
within  towards  the  act  of  worship;  and  as  when  I  see  sheep 
flock  together,  even  in  their  wanderings,  I  may  easily  gather 
that  though  they  are  out  of  their  proper  pastures,  yet  they  are 
of  a  tame  and  sociable  nature;  so  when  we  see  societies  for 
worship  were  preserved  among  men  after  they  were  degene- 
rated into  idolatry;  it  is  an  evident  argument  that  such  asso- 
ciating together  for  the  general  nature  of  the  act,  doth  flow 
from  the  nature  of  man.  Secondly,  All  men's  agreeing  in 
some  kind  of  worship,  though  diff"ering  as  to  the  object  and 
manner  of  it,  is  an  evidence  it  comes  from  nature,  because  it 
plainly  evinces  it  could  not  be  taken  up  out  of  design,  received 
by  custom,  nor  conveyed  by  tradition,  because  even  among 
those  whose  interests  and  designs  have  been  contrary  to  one 
another,  and  could  have  no  mutual  compacts  to  deceive,  have 
all  agreed  in  this  thing,  though  almost  in  all  other  things  they 
have  strangely  differed.  All  other  customs  and  traditions, 
are  either  changed,  or  lost  among  several  nations;  as  the  rude 
barbarous  northern  nations,  that  in  their  inroads  and  incur- 

'  Socinus  prffil.  cap.  2. 


104  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

sions  upon  other  places,  have  left  in  process  of  time,  almost 
all  other  customs  but  their  religion.  This  sticks  closer  than 
Saludbi's  black  shirt,  or  the  old  Monks'  clothes,  which  they 
put  not  off  till  they  died.  Nay,  even  those  nations,  who 
openly,  and  as  by  a  law,  violate  the  other  received  dictates  of 
nature,  do  yet  maintain  and  hold  up  this.  Those  that  have 
had  the  least  of  commerce  and  converse  with  civilized  people, 
have  yet  had  their  societies  for  worship:  and  when  they  could 
find  no  gods  to  worship,  they  would  rather  make  than  want 
them.  The  Egyptians  would  rather  spoil  their  sallets  than 
be  without  gods;  and  they  that  whipt  their  gods,  yet  had  them 
still.  They  who  had  no  sense  of  another  life,  yet  would  pray 
to  their  gods  for  the  good  things  of  this:  and  they  that  would 
not  pray  that  the  gods  would  do  them  good,  yet  would  that 
they  might  do  them  no  hurt:  so  that  in  the  most  prodigious 
idolatry,  we  have  an  argument  for  religion;  and  in  the  strange 
diversities  of  the  ways  of  worship,  we  have  an  evidence  how 
natural  a  society  for  worship  is.  This  is  to  show  the  validity 
and  force  of  the  argument  drawn  from  the  consent  of  nations, 
even  in  their  idolatry. 

§  3.  Three  things  in  these  societies  for  worship  among  the 
heathens  I  shall  cite  as  evidence;  the  solemnity  of  their  sacri- 
fices, their  public  festivals,  and  their  secret  mysteries,  all  which 
were  instituted  peculiarly  in  honour  of  their  gods:  it  being 
necessary  in  such  societies  for  worship  to  have  some  particular 
rites,  whereby  to  testify  the  end  of  such  societies  to  be  for  the 
honour  of  their  deity;  and  to  distinguish  those  solemnities  from 
all  other.  First  then  for  sacrifices;  Paulus  Burgensis  observ- 
ing how  this  custom  spread  all  the  world  over,  concludes  from 
thence  that  it  was  natural  to  men.^  "There  ever  was,  in 
every  age,  and  amongst  all  nations,  some  offering  of  sacrifice; 
and  what  exists  amongst  all  is  the  dictate  of  nature."  Thus 
far  I  confess  sacrificing  natural,  as  it  was  a  solemn  and  sensible 
rite  of  worship;  but  if  he  meant  by  that,  the  destroying  of 
some  living  creatures  to  be  offered  up  to  God,  I  both  deny  the 
universal  practice  of  it,  and  its  being  from  the  dictate  of  nature: 
and  I  rather  believe  with  Fortunius  Licetus^  that  it  was 
continued  down  by  tradition,  from  the  sacrifices  of  Cain  and 
Abel  before  the  flood,  or  rather  from  Noah's  after;  which 
might  the  easier  be,  because  nature  dictating  there  must  be 

'  In  qualibet  aetate,  et  apud  quaslibet  hominum  nationes,  semper  fuit  aliqua 
sacrifieiorum  oblatio.  Quod  autem  est  apud  omncs,  naturale  est. — Scrutiu. 
Scrip,  patt  2,  disl.  3,  cap.  11. 

2  V.  Porphyr.  we^i  airay^i;.     Encyclop.  ad  arara  No  rarii  Terrig.  c.  9,  p.  96 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  105 

some  way  of  worship,  and  it  being  very  agreeable  to  nature 
it  should  be  by  sensible  signs,  all  nations  having  no  other  rule 
to  direct  them,  were  willing  to  observe  that  rite  and  custom  in 
it,  which  was  conveyed  down  to  them  from  their  progenitors: 
but  let  us  see  what  reason  Burgensis  gives:  "The  reason  of 
men,  according  to  natural  inclination,  expressing  their  homage 
to  Him,  who  is  above  all,  according  to  a  mode  convenient  to 
them,  is  called  natural.  Which  mode  is,  that  they  should  use 
sensible  signs  to  intimate  their  internal  impressions,  as  they 
received  their  knowledge  of  things  invisible  from  sensible 
qualities.  Hence  from  this  natural  reason,  men  offer  external 
symbols  to  God  in  token  of  honour  and  subjection,  according 
to  the  analogy  of  those  who  present  something  to  their  master, 
in  acknowledgement  that  he  is  their  lord."^  And  I  withal 
acknowledge,  that  as  to  oblations  without  blood,  they  seem 
indeed  very  natural;  whence  we  shall  somewhat  largely  dis- 
cover the  antiquity  of  the  feasts  of  first  fruits,  which  were  the 
clearest  acknowledgement  of  their  dependence  upon  God,  and 
receiving  these  things  from  him.  Aristotle  tells  us,  "  That 
the  most  ancient  sacrifices  and  assemblies  appear  to  have 
been  upon  the  ingathering  of  fruits,  such  as  the  sacrifices  of 
first  fruits  to  the  gods  were."^    To  the  same  purpose  Por- 

phyriUS,  an   apx*}?  a**"  7<*C  •*'  '^"''  xa^ftov  iyivovto  I'oij  ^sotj  ^stat. 

"  The  first  sacrifices  were  of  first  fruits.''  And  Horace^ 
"  Our  ancient  husbandmen,  strong  and  happy  with  a  little, 
their  grain  being  stored  up,  and  regaling,  in  a  festive  hour, 
their  bodies,  and  even  their  minds  enduring  hardships  through 
the  hope  of  the  termination  of  their  toil,  with  their  companions, 
sons  and  faithful  spouse,  sacrificed  to  Tellus  with  a  hog,  and 
to  Silvanus  with  milk."-^  Although  he  be  not  so  express  for 
'offering  the  very  fruits  of  the  earth;  yet  it  is  evident  from  him, 

'  Ratio  naturalis  dictat,  secundum  naturaleni  inclinationem,  homines  ei  quod 
est  supra  omnes,  subjectionem  exhibeant,  secundum  modum  homini  convenien- 
tem.  Qui  quidem  modus  est,  ut  sensibilibus  signis  utatur,  ad  exprimendum 
interiorem  conceptum,  sicut  ex  sensibilibus  cognitioncm  accipit  invisibilium. 
Unde  ex  naturali  ratione  procedit,  quod  homo  sensibilibus  signis  utatur,  ofFerens 
cas  Deo  in  signum  subjectionis  et  honoris  ad  similitudinem  eorum  qui  Dominis 
suis  aiiquid  offerunt  in  recognitionem  Dominii. 

2  A{  af/aiai  S'utriaj  ^  o-wjJ'oi  cpaivovTat  ytvtsSiti  fxtra  raj  Ta)V  Ka^Ttonv  a-vyKOfju^ag 
oiov  a.tra.^'xai — Nicomach.  1.  3. 

3  De  Abstin.  Ub.  2,  s.  27. 

"»  Agricolae  prisci  fortes,  parvoque  beati 
Condita  post  frumenta,  levantes  tempore  festo 
Corpus,  et  ipsum  animum  spe  finis  dura  fcrentes, 
Cum  sociis  operum  et  pueris  et  conjugffi  fida., 
Tellurcm  porco,  Sylvanum  lacte  piabant. — Ep.  ad.  Aug. 
14 


106'  THE  DIVINE   RIGHT  OF 

that  their  great  festivals  in  honour  of  their  gods,  were  imme- 
diately after  harvest,  and  that  they  had  great  assernbUes  for 
that  purpose,  and  did  then  solemnly  sacrifice.  And  from 
these  solemnities  came  the  original  of  tragedies  and  comedies, 
as  Horace  intimates,  and  is  largely  showed  by  Isaac  Cusaii- 
bon  in  his  Treatise  de  Satyricd  Poesi.^  But  to  fetch  this  yet 
a  little  higher,  and  so  bring  it  downwards;  the  first  sacrifice 
we  read  of  in  scripture,  was  this  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth, 
(unless  the  skins  which  Jidam  clothed  himself  with,  were  of 
the  beasts  sacrificed,  as  some  conjecture:)^  Cain's  sacrifice  was 
nnjo  •'  an  oblation  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth:''  in  all  proba- 
bility the  first  fruits,  as  Abel  offered  the  first  born  of  the  cattle 
to  the  Lord:  this  seems  to  have  been  at  some  solemn  time  of 
sacrificing,  which  is  implied  in  d"'D"'  'i'^12  '■^Jlt  the  end  of  days." 
In  process  of  time  we  render  it;  but  the  Jews  understood  it 
at  the  end  of  the  year:^  days  in  scripture  being  often  put  for 
years;  which  interpretation  if  we  follow,  we  find  a  very  early 
observation  of  the  anniversary  festival  of  first  fruits;  but  how- 
ever this  be,  we  have  by  unquestionable  tradition,  that  no 
festival  was  more  anciently,  nor  more  universally  observed, 
than  this  of  offering  the  first  fruits  to  God  of  their  increase. 
The  Jews  were  bound  up  so  strictly  to  it  by  their  law,  Levi- 
ticus xxiii.  14,  that  they  were  to  eat  nothing  of  their  crop  till 
the  offering  of  first  fruits  was  made.  And  Porphyrins  tells 
us  out  of  Hermippus,^  that  one  of  the  laws  made  for  the 
Jithenians  by  Triptolemus,  was,  ©£85  xa^Tioi^  ayaVKnv,  "  To 
feast  the  gods  with  their  fruits:"  of  which  Xenocrates  there 
gives  a  twofold  reason;  sense  of  gratitude  to  the  gods,  and  the 
easiness  at  all  times  to  offer  up  these;  by  which  he  supposed 
the  custom  would  continue  longer.  Draco^  afterwards  puts 
this  among  his  ©stf^itot  atwi/tot,  "  his  unalterable  laws,"  ©tsj  tinav 
ana.pxo'ii  xa^ftuv,  "  to  worship  their  gods  with  their  first  fruits." 
Besides  which,  for  other  Greeks  we  have  the  testimony  of 
Plutarch,^  "Most  of  the  Grecians,"  saith  he,  "in  their  most 
ancient  sacrifices  did  use  barley,  the  first  fruits  being  offered 
by  the  citizens:"  and  therefore  the  Opuntii''  called  their  chief 
priest  xpt^oxoyos,  because  he  gathered  in  the  first  fruits.  The 
manner  of  offering  the  first  fruits  among  them,  was  much  of 
the  same  nature  with  the  Mincha  among  the  Jews,  which 

iLib.  1,  c.  ].  2Gen.  iv.  2. 

3  V.  Ainswortli,  in  loc.  *  De  abstin.  1.  4,  s.  22. 

5  V.  petit,  ad  Log.  Act.  p.  3. 

fi  Oj    7rX6i?-oi   Toiv    EXXuvotiv    wjoc    ra?    tcomu    'rraXaia:;    S'uj-iaj    E^^aiVTO   rat;   xjiflaic, 
a.'na.g'xofi.vitev  Tint  ito'Kncev. — Cluest.  Graec.  q.  6. 
7  The  inhabitants  of  Opus. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  107 

was  of  "fine  flour  mingled  with  oil  and  frankincense,  for  a 
burnt-offering  to  the  Lord:"^  the  word  there  used  implies  the 
bruising  the  ears  of  corn  in  a  mortar,  because  they  were  as  yet 
moist,  and  could  not  be  ground  hard  as  corn  was.    Whence, 
because  it  was  not  all  brought  to  flour,  the  cake  was  called 
(jcoa  and  x^vfiva,  or  cakes  of  coarsely  ground  barley,  maize,  or 
wheat.     It  is  called  by  the  Septuagint  x^i-Ot;  7te<p^vyfisv7],  "bar- 
ley parched."     So  I  suppose  it  should  be  read,  which  in  our 
great  bibles  is  Ttsf^vyfisva  a;tSgaj  "toasted  groats  or  porridge,"  and 
it  is  called  by  the  Greeks  8%oxvtaL,^  which  word  is  frequently 
used  by  Homer  and  Jipolloniiis  Rhodius,  whom  I  forbear  to 
transcribe,  it  being  so  obvious;  which  is  expounded  both  by 
the  excellent  scholiast  on  Apollonius,  and  by  Eustathius  and 
the  short  scholiast  on  Homer,  to  be  xpOai  |U«9  oxw  niixiyfisva, 
"  barley  and  salt  mixed  together."^     To  which  among  the 
Romans  the  Mola  salsa,  "  salted  meal,"  answered,  of  which 
Festus:  Est  far  tostum  et  sale  conspersum,,  "  he  eats  parched 
meal  sprinkled  with  salt,"  as  the  Mincha  under  the  law,  was 
always  salted  with  salt,  Levit.  ii.  13.   This  Mola  salsa  among 
the  Romans,  had  originally  relation  to  the  first  fruits:  for  the 
custom  of  offering  up  first  fruits  among  them,  was  as  ancient 
as  their  institution  of  religious  rites,  as  Pliny  fully  informs  us, 
"  Numa  ordained  to  worship  the  gods  with  fruits,  and  to  make 
an  oblation  with  salted  meal;  and  that  it  might  be  increased 
to  parch  it  in  the  half  sextary,"''  which  likewise  answers  to 
the  Jewish  Mincha,  which  was  to  be  t^XD  '•h^  tosta  in  igne, 
"  parched  in  the  fire:"^  for  which  purpose  Numa  instituted 
the   Fornacalia,  which   were  farris   torrendi  ferise,  "  the 
feasts  of  first  fruits,"  the  parching  the  corn  being  in  order 
thereto:  see  Pliny^  whose  words  may  be  exactly  rendered  in 
those  of  the  law,  Leviticus  xxiii.  14,     But  though  the  Mola 
salsa'  came  originally  from  hence,  it  afterwards  came  to  be 
used  in  most  sacrifices,  thence  the  word  immolare  to  sacrifice, 
again  parallel  to  the  Mincha  accessorium,  "  the  Mincha  ac- 
cessory," as  some  call  it  among  the  Jews,  which  was  used  in 
other  sacrifices;  and  was  distinct  from  the  Mincha  jier  se, 
which  of  itself  was  an  oblation  to  the  Lord.     From  this  offer- 

•  Levit.  xxiii.  13.  2  Bruised  grain,  parclied  and  sailed. 

3  Iliad,  a.  449,  Arg.  1,  v.  409;  &c. 

■*  Numa  instituii  Deos  frugecolere,  etmola.  sals&,  supplicare;  atque  ut  aucta  sit 
hemina,  far  torrere. — Hist.  Natur.  lib.  13,  c.  2. 

5  Levit.  ii.  14. 

6  An  ne  degustabant  novas  fruges,  aut  vina  antcquam  sacerdotes  primitias 
libassent. 

'  V.  Saubertuni  de  sacrif.  c.  19. 


108  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

ing  up  bruised  corn,  some  derive  the  name  of  Ceres^  from 
B'nj  which  signifies  as  much,  and  was  required,  Leviticus  ii. 
14,  thence  Ovid  I.  8  Met.  Primitias  frugimi  Cereri,  sua 
vina  Lyseo,  "  offer  the  first  fruits  of  corn  to  Ceres,  his  own 
wine  to  Bacchus,"  But  besides  Ceres,  they  olTered  their  first 
fruits  among  the  Greeks  to  Horse,  Diana,  Apollo^  Vesta^  as 
maybe  ^qqw'xw  Meursius  in  'a^aia,  "the  season  of  ripe  fruit;" 
©a^yijxta,  "a  festival  in  honour  of  Diana;"  Ej-tata,  "to  Vesta." 
Thus  we  see  how  these  three  nations  did  agree  not  only  in 
the  observation  of  the  feast  of  first  fruits,  but  very  much  in 
the  ceremonies  of  their  offering  too.  Only  this  difference  may 
be  observed  between  them,  the  Romans  did  mix  their  Mola 
salsa  with  water,  the  Jews  their  Mincha  with  oil  only;  the 
Greeks  did  not  bruise  the  corn  in  their  vkoxvto.i^  "  porridge  of 
parched  grain,"  but  only  mixed  salt  with  the  grains  of  corn. 
But  the  Jews  and  Romans  both  bruised  and  parched  it,  before 
they  offered  it  up  for  the  first  fruits.  Thus  much  to  show  the 
antiquity  and  observance  of  the  offering  up  of  the  first  fruits 
among  the  most  ancient  and  civilized  nations.  Which  though 
it  may  seem  a  digression,  yet  I  hope  not  wholly  unacceptable, 
it  being  likewise  the  offering  of  my  first  fruits,  and  therefore 
the  more  seasonable. 

§  4.  Proceed  we  now  to  other  festival  solemnities,  to  see 
what  evidences  of  a  society  for  worship  we  find  in  them. 
And  for  this  it  is  apparent  that  the  first  original  of  festivals 
among  the  heathen  was  for  the  honour  of  the  gods.  Upon 
which  account  a  grave  and  prudent  author  accounts  the 
observation  of  some  festivals  natural;  because  nature  doth 
dictate  the  necessity  of  some  society  for  the  worship  of  God. 
For  thus  Strabo,^  "  This  is  a  common  observance,  as  well  of 
the  Greeks  as  of  foreign  nations,  to  sacrifice  on  festival  days, 
and  the  propriety  of  this  nature  itself  dictates.""*  Hence  the 
Greeks,  as  Athenseus^  observes,  ^affi^j  tv^x''°-i  "f^v  ^iifiav  Its  ""ov 
^tov  avi^s^ov,  used  to  Say,  "that  their  gods  begged  them  all 
their  play  days."  After  telling  us  of  the  mirth  and  jollity 
used  at  their  sacrifices,  which  was  always  the  second  course 
at  these  festivals,  thence  the  Jews  called  their  high  festival 
days  D'310  o'nv  "good  days,  or  days  of  mirth."  We  read  of 
few  nations  but  had  these  festival  solemnities  for  the  honour 

'  Vossius  de  1  loc.  1.  2,  cap.  59. 

2Gr-<Ec.  Fer.  2.  a  Geogr.  I.  10. 

"•  Kc(Vov  TouTO  xai  tojv  'eXXwojv  xai  Totv  Baj^ajcBV  eg-i,  to  rag  ho^Tlonai;  fjtira  anTiong 

^  Deipnosopli.  lib.  ft. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  109 

of  their  gods.  The  Persianfi  had  theirs  for  their  god  Mithras. 
The  Babyloniana,  saith  JHhensnus  out  oi  Berosus}  had  their 
feast  Sacvea,  which  Casauhon  would  have  called  Sesacsca^ 
because  Babylon  in  Scripture  is  called  "jiysy  Sesac,  as  the  Liidi 
Romani  were  from  Rome.  It  is  to  no  purpose  to  mention 
the  festivals  observed  by  the  Greeks  and  Romans  in  honour 
of  their  gods,  being  so  many,  that  whole  books  have  been 
composed  of  them.  That  which  I  observe  from  hence,  is, 
that  societies  for  the  worship  of  God  are  natural;  because  of 
their  solemn  resting  from  their  ordinary  labour  upon  days 
appointed  for  the  honour  of  their  gods;  thereby  showing,  they 
looked  upon  those  as  peculiar  days,  and  themselves  as  pecu- 
liar societies  upon  those  days,  from  what  they  were  at  other 
times.  One  thing  more  evidences  this  among  them;  their 
solemn  and  secret  mysteries,  which  were  societies  on  pur- 
pose, as  pretended,  for  this  very  end,  in  honour  of  their  gods. 
Their  uf^j-a,  (jisyaxa,  ^^ox'^a  fivgtjpta,  "their  solemn,  great,  and 
terrible  mysteries,"  as  they  were  wont  to  call  them,  preserved 
with  the  greatest  secrecy  by  the  irtonlat,,  "initiated  inspectors." 
Their  great  and  lesser  Eleiisi7iian,  Samothrucian^  Cotyttian, 
Mithriacal  mysteries,  to  which  none  were  admitted  without 
passing  through  many  degrees,  xada^avi,  /jLv/iaii,  cv^aaii,  "purifi- 
cation, initiation,  and  confirmation,"  before  they  came  to  be 
sTtoTtlai,  "  perfectly  initiated."  Wherein  they  were  much  imi- 
tated by  the  Christians  in  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper, 
about  the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  as  is  largely  shown  by  Casau- 
bon  in  a  most  learned  diatriba,  "disquisition,"  on  this  subject 
in  his  exercitations,  to  which  I  refer  the  reader.  We  see  what 
strict  rules  they  had  for  admission  into  these  most  impious 
societies.  In  those  of  Mithras,  as  Suidas  and  Nonmis^  tell 
us,  they  passed  through  eighty  degrees,  before  they  were 
thoroughly  initiated,  and  seldom  escaped  with  life.  How- 
ever we  may  gain  from  them  this  general  notion,  that  they 
looked  on  a  pecuhar  distinct  society,  as  necessary  for  the 
worship  and  honour  of  the  deity  they  served.  Thus  we  see 
a  posteriori  how  a  distinct  society  for  God's  worship  appears 
to  be  a  dictate  of  nature. 

We  shall  now  see  if  we  can  evidence  d  priori,  that  it  is  a 
dictate  of  nature,  that  there  must  be  some  society  for  the 

•  Deipnos.  1. 14,  cap.  10.  V.  Meursii  Groec.  Arist.  Castellon.  EoproXoyov.  Hospin. 
de  Fustis.     Mich.  Benther  de  Fastis. 

2  Exercit.  in  Bas.  2  6,  s.  49,  sed  vide  Gothofred.  in  Tim.  iii.  16.  Salmas.  in 
Hist.  Aug.  p.  31,  33.  Suidas  inv.  Mithras.  Noiinus  in  Naz.  Stetit.  p.  132. 
Mcursiuni  in  Eluusiais. 


110  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

worship  of  God.  Three  things  will  make  that  appear.  First, 
the  sociableness  of  man's  nature.  Man  is  aytTiatoi/ 1<,,  "  some- 
thing gregarious,"  a  creature  that  loves  to  herd  itself  with 

those  of  his  own  kind.      A'Vfu  ya^  ^l%ov,  ovbn^  6.v  {"Kovto  ^riv  tx<^v  T'a 

xotrttt  dya^a  Ttavta.  "  If  a  man  had  all  other  comforts  of  life, 
and  wanted  society,  he  would  not  think  his  life  worth  lead- 
ing," as  tdris/otle^  observes,  who  further  takes  notice  of  the 
sociableness  of  man's  nature:  "oosv  tovi  ^aavepioftw?  iTtawovfiiv, 
"  whence  we  commend  courteous  and  affable  men."  I  deny 
not,  but  in  the  entering  into  a  civil  state  or  society,  either 
fear,  or  profit,  might  be  a  main  inducement  to  it;  but  though 
it  be  an  inducement,  yet  there  must  be  supposed  an  inclinable- 
ness  to  a  society;  or  a  commonwealth  might  be  as  soon  set 
up  among  tigers  as  men.  So  that  they  have  very  little  ground 
of  reason,  who  from  the  external  inducements  of  fear,  or 
profit,  in  entering  into  civil  societies,  do  conclude  against  the 
sociableness  of  man's  nature.  If  then  man's  nature  be 
sociable  in  all  other  things,  then  nature  will  tell  men,  they 
ought  to  be  so  in  things  of  common  concernment  to  them  all, 
and  which  is  every  one's  work  or  duty,  as  religion  is;  if  in 
other  things  men  are  sociable,  much  more  in  this.  For 
secondly/,  religion  gives  a  great  improvement  to  man's  socia- 
ble nature;  and  therefore  Plutarch^  well  calls  religion  awsxtLxov 
drtas^s  xowuviai  xau  vo^oOsaiai  i^sidij-a.  "A  foundation  that  knits 
and  joints  societies  together."  And  thence  wisely  observes, 
that  in  the  constitution  of  laws,  wpwT'oj/  \^i,v  ij  rts^t  ^swr  6o|a  xat 
^fyigov'.  "the  first  and  greatest  thing  to  be  looked  at,  is,  the 
religion  established,"  or  the  opinions  men  entertain  of  the 
gods.  To  which  he  subjoins  this  excellent  reason,  "  That  it 
is  more  impossible  for  a  commonwealth  either  to  be  formed 
or  subsist  without  religion,  than  a  city  to  stand  without  foun- 
dations,"^ Thence,  a  prudent  statesman''  called  religion,  the 
best  reason  of  state.  It  appears  then  evidently  from  reason 
and  experience,  that  religion  hath  a  great  infiuence  upon  the 
modelling  and  ordering  civil  societies,  whence,  as  the  same 
moralist  observes,  Lycurgus  did,  as  it  were,  consecrate  the 
Lacedaemonians  with  religious  rites,  as  Numa  the  Romans, 
Jon  the  Athenians,  and  Deucalion  the  Hellens.  Whence 
some  half-witted  men,  (but  I  know  not  whether  more  de- 
fective in  wit,  or  grace),  have,  (observing  the  great  influence 

1  Aristot.  Nicom.  1.  8,  c.  1.  2  Moral,  adverse.  Colotem. 

3  rroXi?  av  juoi  JoxEi  /tiaXXov  IS'a<f)oi;j  ;^ai;fif,  ri  TcoKniia  t»c  wspt  fleoiv  Jo^i;  ava.ipBQeian<;, 
'Tta.vra'Tca.cTi  av(;'a.a-iv  Xttdnv  ri  XaSova-a.  T£pwo-aj. 
••  Lord  Bacon,  Essay  of  a  King. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  Ill 

religion  hath  to  keep  men  in  order),  been  ready  to  look  upon 
it  as  only  a  politic  device,  to  awe  men  with  greater  ease.  It 
is  not  here  a  place  largely  to  examine  and  refute  this  un- 
worthy pretence.  Only  I  adjure  them  by  their  only  goddess, 
reason,  to  tell  me,  whence  come  men  to  be  sfXTtadsis  c^o^  *«  ^sm 
8i  i-KHi8oiv  aifia  xm  f  o/3wv,  as  Flutcirch  cxprcsscs  it,  "  To  be  so 
easily  awed  by  the  hopes  and  fears  of  another  life  more  than 
other  creatures  are?  Why  are  they  at  all  affected  with  the 
discourse  of  them?  Why  cannot  they  shake  off  the  thoughts 
of  these  things  when  they  please?  Are  not  men  hereby  made 
the  most  miserable  of  creatures?  For  no  other  creature  can 
be  persuaded  that  it  shall  ever  quench  its  thirst  in  those  rivers 
of  pleasures,  nor  make  its  bed  in  everlasting  flames.  The 
beasts  of  Sardinia  that  have  their  only  refreshment  by  the 
dew  of  heaven,  yet  have  never  any  hopes  to  come  there. 
The  lion  never  keeps  from  his  prey  by  the  thoughts  and  fears 
of  a  great  tribunal.  But  suppose  only  mankind  of  all  crea- 
tures should  be  liable  to  be  thus  imposed  on,  as  is  pretended; 
how  comes  it  to  pass  that  in  no  age  of  the  world  this  impos- 
ture hath  not  been  discovered,  confuted,  and  shaken  off  by 
some  people  as  wise  as  themselves?  Or  have  there  never 
been  any  such  in  the  world?  But  whence  come  some  men 
then  to  be  wiser  than  others?  Whence  come  some  to  know 
things  which  all  the  reason  in  the  world  could  never  find  out, 
without  revelation?  Whence  comes  a  power  to  do  anything 
above  the  course  of  nature,  if  there  be  nothing  but  nature? 
Or  are  all  men  deceived  that  believe  such  things?  If  so,  then 
there  must  be  somewhat  that  must  deceive  men;  they  would 
not  deceive  themselves,  and  could  not  be  so  long  imposed 
upon  by  others;  there  must  be  then  some  evil  spirit  to  do  it; 
and  whence  should  that  come?  from  nature  too?  but  then 
whence  comes  nature?  from  itself  too,  or  from  something 
else?  Did  it  make  itself,  or  was  it  made  by  a  greater  power 
than  it?  If  it  made  itself,  it  must  be  and  not  be  at  the  same 
time;  it  must  be  as  producing,  and  not  be  as  produced  by  that 
act.  And  what  has  become  of  our  reason  now?  There  must 
be  then  a  supreme,  eternal,  infinite  Being,  who  made  the 
world  and  all  in  it;  which  hath  given  nature  such  a  touch  of 
its  own  immortality  and  dependence  upon  God,  that  reason 
capable  of  religion  is  the  most  proper  distinctive  character  of 
man  from  all  inferior  beings.  And  this  touch  and  sense 
being  common  to  the  whole  nature,  they  therefore  incline 
more  to  one  another's  society  in  the  joint  performance  of  the 
common  duties,  due  from  them  to  their  Maker.     And  so 


112  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

religion  not  only  makes  all  other  bonds  firm,  (which  without 
it  are  nothing,  as  oaths,  covenants,  promises,  and  the  like, 
without  which  no  civil  society  can  be  upheld,)  but  must  of 
itself  be  supposed  especially  to  tie  men  in  a  nearer  society  to 
one  another,  in  reference  to  the  proper  acts  belonging  to  itself. 
Thirdly,  it  appears  from  the  greater  honour  which  redounds 
to  God  by  a  sociable  way  of  worship.  Nature  that  dictates 
that  God  should  be  worshipped,  doth  likewise  dictate  that 
worship  should  be  performed  in  a  way  most  for  the  honour 
and  glory  of  God.  Now  this  tends  more  to  promote  God's  ho- 
nour, when  his  service  is  owned  as  a  public  thing,  and  men  do 
openly  declare  and  profess  themselves  his  subjects.  If  the 
honour  of  a  king  lies  in  the  publicly  professed  and  avowed 
obedience  of  a  multitude  of  subjects;  it  must  proportionably 
promote  and  advance  God's  honour  more  to  have  a  fixed, 
stated  worship,  whereby  men  may  in  a  community  and  pub- 
lic society  declare  and  manifest  their  homage  and  fealty  to  the 
Supreme  governor  of  the  world.  Thus  then  we  see  the  light 
of  nature  dictates  there  should  be  a  society  and  joining  together 
of  men  for  and  in  the  worship  of  God. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  113 


CHAPTER   IV. 

The  second  thing  the  law  of  nature  dictates,  that  this  society  be  maintained  and 
governed  in  the  most  convenient  manner.  A  further  inquiry,  what  particular 
orders  for  government  in  the  Church  come  from  the  law  of  nature.  Six  laid 
down,  and  evidenced  to  be  from  thence.  First,  a  distinction  of  some  persons, 
and  their  superiority  over  others,  both  in  power  and  order,  cleared  to  be  from 
the  law  of  nature.  The  power  and  application  of  the  power  distinguished; 
this  latter  not  from  any  law  of  nature  binding,  but  permissive:  therefore  may 
be  restrained.  People's  right  of  choosing  Pastors  considered.  Order  distin- 
guished from  the  form  and  manner  of  government:  the  former  natural,  the 
other  not.  The  second  is,  that  the  persons  employed  in  the  service  of  God, 
should  have  respect  answerable  to  their  employment,  which  appears  from 
their  relation  to  God  as  his  servants;  from  the  persons  employed  in  this  work 
before  positive  laws.  Masters  of  families  the  first  Priests.  The  priesthood  of 
the  first  born  before  the  Lord  discussed:  the  arguments  for  it  answered.  The 
conjunction  of  civil  and  sacred  authority  largely  showed,  among  Egyptians, 
Grecians,  Romans,  and  others.  The  ground  of  separation  of  them  afterwards, 
from  Plutarch  and  others. 

§  1.  The  second  thing  which  the  hght  of  nature  dictates,  in 
reference  to  church  government,  is,  that  the  society  in  which 
men  join  for  the  worship  of  God,  be  preserved,  maintained, 
and  governed  in  the  most  convenient  manner.  Nature,  which 
requires  society,  doth  require  government  in  that  society,  or 
else  it  is  no  society.  Now  we  shall  inquire  what  particular 
orders  for  government  of  this  society  established  for  the  wor- 
ship of  God,  do  flow  from  the  light  of  nature,  which  I  conceive 
are  these  following. 

First,  To  the  maintaining  of  a  society,  there  is  requisite  a 
distinction  of  persons,  and  a  superiority  of  power  and  order, 
in  some  over  the  other.  If  all  be  rulers,  every  man  is  sui 
juris,  and  so  there  can  be  no  society,  or  each  man  must  have 
power  over  the  other,  and  that  brings  confusion.  There  must 
be  some  then  invested  with  power  and  authority  over  others, 
to  rule  them  in  such  things  wherein  they  are  to  be  subordi- 
nate to  them;  that  is,  in  all  things  concerning  that  society  thev 
15 


114  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

are  entered  into.  Two  things  are  implied  in  this:  first,  power; 
secondly,  order.  By  power,  I  mean  a  right  to  govern;  by 
order,  the  superiority  of  some  as  rulers,  the  subordination  of 
others  as  ruled.  These  two  are  so  necessary,  that  no  civil 
society  in  the  world  can  be  without  them:  for  if  there  be  no 
power,  how  can  men  rule?  If  no  order,  how  can  men  be 
ruled,  or  be  subject  to  others  as  their  governors?  Here  several 
things  must  be  heedfully  distinguished.  The.  power  from  the 
application  of  that  poiver,  which  we  call  the  title  to  govern- 
ment. The  order  itself  ivom  the  form  or  inanner  of  govern- 
ment. Some  of  these  I  assert  as  absolutely  necessary  to  all 
government  of  a  society,  and  consequently  of  the  church,  con- 
sidered without  positive  laws;  but  others  to  be  accidental, 
and  therefore  variable.  I  say  then  that  there  be  a  governing 
power  in  the  church  of  God,  is  immutable,  not  only  by  virtue 
of  God's  own  constitution,  but  as  a  necessary  result  from  the 
dictate  of  nature,  supposing  a  society;  but  whether  this  power 
must  be  derived  by  succession,  or  by  a  free  choice,  is  not  at 
all  determined  by  the  light  of  nature;  because  it  may  be  a 
lawful  power,  and  derived  either  way:  and  the  law  of  nature 
as  binding,  only  determines  of  necessaries.  Now  in  civil  go- 
vernment, we  see  that  a  lawful  title  is  by  succession  in  some 
places,  as  by  election  in  other.  So  in  the  church  under  the 
law,  the  power  went  by  lineal  descent,  and  yet  a  lawful 
power:  and  on  the  other  side,  none  deny,  (setting  aside  positive 
laws,)  but  it  might  be  as  lawful  by  choice  and  free  election. 
The  main  reason  of  this  is,  that  the  title  or  manner  of  convey- 
ing authority  to  particular  persons,  is  no  part  of  the  preceptive 
obligatory  law  of  nature,  but  only  of  the  permissive;  and  con- 
sequently is  not  immutable,  but  is  subject  to  divine  or  human 
positive  determinations,  and  thereby  made  alterable:  and  sup- 
posing a  determination,  either  by  scripture  or  lawful  autho- 
rity, the  exercise  of  that  natural  right  is  so  far  restrained  as  to 
become  sinful,  according  to  the  third  proposition  under  the  2d 
hypoth.  and  the  5th  hypoth.  So  that  granting  at  present,  that 
people  have  the  right  of  choosing  their  own  pastors;  this  right 
being  only  a  part  of  the  permissive  law  of  nature,  may  be 
lawfully  restrained  and  otherwise  determined,  by  those  that 
have  lawful  authority  over  the  people,  as  a  civil  society,  ac- 
cording to  the  5tli  hypoth.  If  it  be  pleaded  that  they  have  a 
right  by  divine  positive  law,  that  law  must  be  produced,  it 
being  already  proved,  that  no  bare  example,  without  a  decla- 
ration by  God  that  such  an  example  binds,  doth  constitute  a 
divine  right  which  is  unalterable.     We  say  then,  that  the 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  115 

manner  of  investing  church  governors  in  their  authority,  is 
not  determined  by  the  law  of  nature;  but  that  there  should  be 
a  power  governing,  is,  (supposing  a  society,)  of  the  immutable 
law  of  nature,  because  it  is  that  without  which  no  society  can 
be  maintained.  And  this  is  one  of  those  things  which  are  of 
the  law  of  nature,  not  in  an  absolute  state  of  liberty;  but  sup- 
posing some  acts  of  men,  which,  (once  supposed,)  become  im- 
mutable, and  indispensable.  As  supposing  propriety,  every 
man  is  bound  to  abstain  from  what  is  another's,  without  his 
consent,  by  an  immutable  law  of  nature;  which  yet  supposes 
some  act  of  man,  viz.  the  voluntary  introducing  of  propriety 
by  consent.  So  supposing  a  society  in  being,  it  is  an  immuta- 
ble dictate  of  the  law  of  nature,  that  a  power  of  government 
should  be  maintained  and  preserved  in  it. 

§  2.  So  I  say  for  the  second  thing,  order.  This,  as  it  im- 
plies the  subordination  of  some  in  a  society  to  others  as  their 
rulers,  is  immutable  and  indispensable;  but  as  to  the  form 
whereby  that  order  should  be  preserved,  that  is,  whether  the 
government  should  be  in  the  hands  of  one  or  more,  is  no  wise 
determined  by  the  obligatory  law  of  nature;  because  either  of 
them  may  be  lawful  and  useful  for  the  ends  of  government, 
and  so  neither  necessary  by  that  law:  for  as  to  the  law  of 
nature,  the  case  is  the  same  in  civil  and  religious  societies; 
now  who  will  say,  that  according  to  the  law  of  nature,  any 
form  of  government,  monarchy,  aristocracy,  democracy,  is 
unlawful.  These  things  are  then  matters  of  natural  liberty, 
and  not  of  natural  necessity,  and  therefore  must  be  examined 
according  to  positive  determinations  of  divine  and  human 
laws.  This  then  is  clear  as  to  our  purpose,  that  a  power  in 
the  church  must  be  constantly  upheld  and  preserved,  fitly 
qualified  for  the  ends  of  government,  is  an  immutable  law;  so 
that  this  power  be  lodged  in  some  particular  persons  to  act  as 
governors,  and  so  distinct  from  others  as  subordinate  to  them; 
but  whether  the  power  of  government  come  from  people  by 
election,  or  from  pastors  by  ordination,  or  from  magistrates 
by  commission  and  delegation;  whether  one,  two,  or  all  these 
ways,  is  not  determined  by  natural  law,  but  must  be  looked 
for  in  God's  positive  laws;  if  not  there  to  be  found,  we  must 
acquiesce  in  what  is  determined  by  lawful  authority.  The 
same  I  say  again,  as  to  forms  of  government,  whether  the 
power  of  sole  jurisdiction,  and  ordination,  be  invested  in  one 
person  above  the  rank  of  presbyters,  or  be  lodged  in  a  college 
acting  in  a  parity  of  power,  is  a  plea  that  must  be  removed 
from  the  court  of  common  law  of  nature,  to  the  king's  bench; 


lljB  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

I  mean  to  the  positive  laws  of  God,  or  the  supreme  power  in  a 
commonwealth:  there  being  no  statutes  in  the  law  of  nature 
to  determine  it:  it  must  be  therefore  placitum  regis,  "  the 
pleasure  of  the  king,"  some  positive  law  must  end  the  contro- 
versy. We  therefore  traverse  the  suit  here,  and  shall  enter  it 
at  the  other  court. 

The  second  thing  dictated  by  the  law  of  nature  is,  "  that 
the  persons  employed  in  the  immediate  service  of  God,  and 
entrusted  with  the  power  of  governing  the  society  appointed  for 
that  end,  should  have  respect  paid  them  answerable  to  the 
nature  of  their  employment.  This  appears  to  have  foundation 
in  the  law  of  nature,  being  easily  deducible  from  one  of  the 
first  principles  of  that  law,  that  God  is  to  be  worshipped;  if 
so,  then  those  whose  employment  is  chiefly  to  attend  upon 
himself,  ought  to  have  greater  reverence  than  others.     By 
the  same  reason  in  nature,  that  if  we  do  honour  the  king 
himself,  the  nearer  any  are  to  the  king's  person  in  attendance 
and  employment,  the  greater  honour  is  to  be  showed  them. 
The  ground  of  which  is,  that  the  honour  given  to  servants  as 
such,  is  not  given  to  their  persons,  but  to  their  relation^  or  to 
the  one  only  upon  the  account  of  the  other;  and  so  it  doth  not 
fix  and  terminate  upon  themselves,  but  rebounds  back,  and 
reflects  upon  the  original  and  fountain  of  that  honour,  the 
prince  himself:  so  if  any  be  honoured  upon  the  account  of 
their  immediate  employment  in  the  service  of  God,  it  is  God 
who  is  chiefly  honoured,  and  not  they;  it  being  the  way  men 
have  to  express  their  honour  to  God,  by  showing  it  propor- 
tionably  and  respectively  to  those  who  either  represent  him, 
or  are  employed  by  him.   Eij  tov  -tuv  6^.(^v  ^safiotTjv  ij  -tifitj  StaSau/? t 
as    Chrysostoin^  speaks    in    this  very  case.     The  honour 
passeth  through  them  to  God  himself.     Where  he  largely 
proves  this  very  thing  from  the  Egyptians  sparing  the  lands 
of  their  priests;  and  argues  at  least  for  an  equality  of  honour, 
from  reason,  to  be  given  to  those  who  serve  the  true  God. 
Nay,  he  is  so  far  from  looking  upon  it  as  part  of  their  super- 
stition, that  he  mounts  his  argument  hpari, "  from  an  equal," 
to  one  (X  minori  ad  majus, "  from  a  less  to  a  greater,"  that  is, 
"  as  much  as  truth  exceeds  error,  and  the  servants  of  God  do 
the  idol  priests;  so  much  let  the  honour  we  give  to  them  ex- 
ceed that  which  was  given  by  the  heathen  to  theirs."^    But 


'  Homil.  65,  in  Gen.  xlvii.  26,  torn.  i.  p.  506.     Ed.  Savil. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  117 

we  have  a  further  evidence  of  the  honourableness  of  this  em- 
ployment, by  the  light  of  nature,  from  the  persons  employed 
in  this  work,  before  any  positive  laws  did  restrain  it:  for  I  say 
not,  that  the  law  of  nature  doth  dictate,  that  the  function  of 
those  employed  in  this  work  should  be  differenced  from  all 
others;  that  is  done  by  divine  positive  laws;  but  the  honour  of 
those  in  that  function  is  from  the  law  of  nature:  which  appears 
hence,  that  in  the  oldest  times,  those  who  had  the  greatest 
authority  civil,  had  likewise  the  sacred  conjoined  with  it.  For 
as  JirisiotU^  rightly  observes,  that  the  original  of  civil  govern- 
ment was  from  private  families:  so  in  those  families,  before 
they  came  to  associate  for  more  public  worship,  the  master  of 
the  family  was  the  priest  of  it.^  Thence  we  read  of  Noah's 
sacrificing,  Abrahani's  duty  to  instruct  his  family,  and  his 
own  command  for  offering  up  his  son:  we  read  of  Jacob's 
sacrificing,  and  Job's^,  and  so  of  others.  Every  master  of  the 
family  then  was  the  high  priest  too,  and  governed  his  family, 
not  only  as  such,  but  as  a  religious  society. 

§  3.  Afterwards,  (from  what  institution  we  know  not;  but 
certainly  the  reason  of  it,  if  it  were  so,  v.'as  to  put  the  greater 
honour  upon  the  eldest  son,)  it  is  generally  conceived,  that  the 
first-born  had  the  priesthood  of  the  family  in  their  possession, 
till  the  time  of  the  Levitical  law,-*  The  Jewish  doctors  think 
that  was  the  birthright  which  Jacob  procured  from  his  father, 
and  which  Abraham  gave  to  Isaac,  when  it  is  said,  that  he 
gave  him  Sd  "a//"  that  he  had:  for,  saith  Postellus,^  if  it  be 
meant  in  a  literal  sense,  how  could  he  give  these  gifts  to  his 
other  sons  which  are  mentioned  before?  Wherefore  he  con- 
jectures, by  that  "all,"  is  meant  the  spiritual  knowledge  of 
Christ,  which  he  calls  intellectiis  generalis;  which  might  be 
more  proper  to  him  as  priest  of  the  family.  But  the  plain 
meaning  is  no  more,  than,  when  Abraham  had  bestowed 
legacies  on  his  other  children,  he  left  Isaac  hxrcdem  ex  asse, 
"  the  heir  to  his  whole  estate."  I  am  unwilling  to  deny  a 
tradition  so  generally  received,  among  both  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian writers,  as  the  priesthood  of  the  first-born  before  the  law; 
but  this  I  say,  I  cannot  yet  find  any  other  ground  for  it  but 
tradition:  no  place  of  scripture  giving  us  sufficient  evidence 
for  it,  and  many  against  it.  That  which  serves  sufficiently 
for  the  confutation  of  it,  is  that  observation  of  Theodoret^ 

'  Politic.  lib.  i.  cap.  2. 

2  Gen,  viii.  20;  xviii.  19;  xxii.  2;  xxxi.  54.  '  Job  xlii.  8. 

■*  V.  Selden.  de  success,  ad  loc.  Heb.  cap.  5. 

5  Origin,  cap.  15,  p.  69.  «  Qu.  108,  in  Gen. 


118  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

eftierifia'V'tiov  ov  ott  Tiavtaxov  iiov  'd^Mfo'tvxtiv  ol  fist    dui'ovj  rt^ofi/jisvtatt 

«'  It  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  younger  are  always  preferred 
before  the  first-born."^  Whicli  he  takes  notice  of  from  the  case 
he  there  speaks  to,  of  Ephrai?n  and  Manasses;  and  so  runs 
it  up  to  Jlbel  preferred  before  Cain,  Seth  before  Japheth, 
Abraham  before  his  elder  brethren,  Isaac  before  Ismael^ 
Jacob  before  Esau,  Judas  and  Joseph  before  Reuben,  Moses 
before  Aaron,  and  David  before  the  rest  of  his  brethren; 
(although  that  was  after  the  law.)  That  place  which  gives 
the  greatest  countenance  to  the  opinion  is,  "  and  thou  shall 
take  the  Levites  for  me  instead  of  the  lirst-born:"^  where  it 
seems,  that  the  first-born  were  formerly  the  priests,  in  whose 
room  the  Levites  were  taken.  But  with  submission  to  better 
judgments,  I  can  see  nothing  implied  in  this  place,  but  only 
that  God  having  delivered  their  first-born  in  Egypt, ^  and  call- 
ing for  them  to  be  sanctified  to  him,-*  upon  the  account  of  the 
propriety  he  had  in  tiiem,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  by  that  de- 
liverance, (and  not  on  the  account  of  any  special  service,  for 
many  were  very  unfit  for  that  by  reason  of  age,  and  which 
is  observable,  God  requires  as  well  the  first-born  of  beasts, 
both  to  be  sanctified  and  redeemed.  Numbers,  iii.  41;)  there- 
fore God  now  settling  a  way  of  worship,  he  gave  the  Israelites 
liberty  to  redeem  them,  and,  instead  of  them,  pitched  on  the 
tribe  of  Levi  for  his  own  service.  Another  place  is.  Exodus 
xxiv.  5,  where  the  young  men  are  mentioned  that  offered 
burnt-offering.  It  is  confessed  that  the  Chaldee  paraphrast 
and  Arabic  version  understand  here  the  first-born;  but  how- 
ever the  place  implies  no  more  than  that  they  were  employed 
to  bring  the  sacrifices,  for  so  the  Septuagint  render  it.^    xm 

ilartf s'ftXf  ■z'ovj  vtaviox'^'^i  "tovi  itwi'  I(jpa»j?i.  xae.  avr^veyxev  oXoxavtataia, 

"  and  he  sent  young  men  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  they 
brought  back  burnt-offerings,"  or  else  that  they  were  em- 
ployed as  the  popas,  "sacrificing  priests,"  only  to  kill  the 
sacrifices;  for  we  see  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood,  which  was 
the  main  thing  intended  here  as  a  federal  rite,  was  done  by 
Moses  himself,  who  was  the  high  priest  of  the  people  as  well 
as  prince,  till  Jiaron  and  his  sons  were  set  apart,  which  was 
not  till  Exodus  xxviii.  1,  2,  and  yet  Aaron  was  three  years 
older  than  Moses,  Exodus  vii.  7,  which  is  an  evidence  that 

'  V.  Isidor.  Pel.  lib.  2,  ep.  47,  et  48  ad  fin. 
2  Numbers,  iii.  41.  3  Exodus,  xil.  23. 

■*  Exodus,  xiii.  2. 

5  V.  Selden.  de  success,  ad  Pontif.  ebr.  cap.  1,  sed  et  V.  eutn  de  Syned.  lib.  1, 
Cap.  16. 


*'     FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  119 

^aron  as  first-born  was  not  the  priest;  for  till  his  consecration, 
Moses,  and  not  Aaron,  performed  the  offices  of  priesthood. 
Thence  we  read,  Psalm  xcix.  6,  ''Moses  and  Aaron  among 
his  priests."  For  although  the  word  :n3, "a  priest,"  be  some- 
times attributed  to  those  in  civil  authority,  as  2  Samuel  viii. 
18,  compared  with  1  Chi'on.  xviii.  17,  and  2  Sam.  xxvi.  26; 
Ge7i.  xli.  50;  Exodus  ii.  16;  Job  xii.  19,  yet  there  is  no  reason 
so  to  understand  it  of  Moses:  and  further,  the  ground  why 
jriD  was  attributed  to  both  prince  and  priest  before  the  law, 
was,  because  the  same  person  might  be  both;  as  the  priests  of 
Egypt  were  princes  too.  Gen.  xli.  50.  But  for  Moses,  we 
read  not  only  of  the  title,  but  the  proper  offices  of  priests 
attributed  to  him,  as  sacrificing.  Exodus  xxiv.  5,  consecrating 
Aaron  and  his  sons.  Exodus  xxix.  35,  and  therefore  Aben 
Ezra  upon  that  psalm  forecited,  calls  him  D^nzin  pD,  "  the  high 
priest."^ 

§  4.  This  priesthood  of  Moses  leads  us  to  another  evidence 
of  the  honour  of  those  who  were  employed  in  the  service  of 
God,  which  is  that  when  families  increased,  and  many  asso- 
ciated into  a  commonwealth,  though  the  private  service  might 
belong  to  the  master  of  the  family,  yet  the  public,  before  posi- 
tive laws  restraining  it,  was  most  commonly  joined  with  the 
civil  power.  That  Melchizedek  was  both  king  and  priest  in 
Salem;  if  with  the  Jews  we  conclude  he  was  Sem,  (which  we 
have  little  reason  for,)  it  will  be  a  greater  evidence,  Sem  being 
then  the  greatest  potentate  living.  But  we  pass  from  him  to 
other  nations  after  the  dispersion,  to  see  where  the  power 
over  religious  societies  was  generally  held.  In  Egypt  we  find 
that  their  priests  were  often  made  kings,  as  Plutarch^  observes 
out  of  Hecatseus,  and  is  confessed  by  Strabo,  Diodorus,  and 
others.  Of  the  Greeks  the  same  Plutarch  gives  us  a  large 
testimony,  that  among  them  avtippoTtov  '^v  to  tvn  tspoawrji  altcajita 
Tt^o?  to  fTji  Baaixsiai  "the  priesthood  was  accounted  of  equal 
dignity  with  the  kingdom."  The  same  doth  Aristotle  in  seve- 
ral places  of  his  politics:  and  particularly  of  the  Spartans,  of 
whom  Herodotus^  adds,  that  the  priesthood  of  Jupiter  Coe- 
lestis  and  Lacedsemonius  did  always  belong  to  the  king's  own 
person.  For  the  old  Latins,  Virgil's  Anius  is  sufficient:  and 
among  the  Romans  after  the  powers  were  separated,  the  Pon- 
tifex  Max.  had  royal  state,  his  cella  curulis,  chair  of  state, 

'  V.  Selden.  de  Syned.  1.  2,  cap.  2,  s.  3. 

2  Plul.  de  Is.  &  Osiad.  Str.  Geog.  1.  17.    Quest.  Rom.  110.     Politic.  1.  3,  cap. 
10,  11,1.  6,  cap.  8,  lib.  3,  c.  4. 
*  Herod.  1.  6,  V.  Crag,  de  rep.  Laced,  lib.  2,  c.  2. 


120  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

or  chief  magistrate,  and  Lictores,  the  marshals,  as  the  con- 
suls had,  only  their  priests  meddled  not  in  civil  affairs,  of 
which  Plutarch  gives  a  double  reason,  the  impossibility  of 
minding  both  employments  as  they  should  do,  and  so  must 
either  aoi^nv  tovi  Osov;,  "  neglect  the  worship  of  the  gods,"i  or 
else  exartlsiv  ■fov?  noutai,  "  wrong  the  people,"  with  the  neglect 
of  the  administration  of  justice.  The  other  reason  is,  because 
those  that  were  employed  in  civil  affairs,  were  put  upon  exe- 
cution of  justice;  and  it  was  no  ways  fit  a  man  should  come 
reeking  from  the  blood  of  citizens,  to  go  and  sacrifice  to  the 
gods.  This  conjunction  of  civil  and  sacred  power  is  attested 
by  Clemens  Alexandrinus^  of  the  most  civilized  heathens;  so 
likewise  by  Synesius  of  the  most  ancient  nations,  by  Strabo 
of  the  Ephesians,  by  the  Roman  historians  of  the  Roman 
emperors,  who  from  Augustus  to  Gratian,  and  some  say 
after,  continued  the  title  of  Pontifex  Maximus  among  the 
rest  of  the  imperial  honours.  Thus  much  then  may  serve  to 
manifest  how  the  honour  of  those  persons  who  are  employed 
in  the  service  of  God,  and  the  government  of  religious  socie- 
ties is  a  dictate  of  the  law  of  nature. 

iQu.  Rom.  110. 

2  Strom.  1.  7,  ep.  121,  Geog.  I.  14,  Sueton.  in  Aug.  c.  31,  V.  Casaub,  in  ].  & 
Seld.  de  Syned.  1.  1,  c.  10. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  121. 


CHAPTER   V. 

The  third  thing  dictated  by  the  Law  of  Nature,  is  the  solemnity  of  all  things  to 
be  performed  in  this  society;  which  lies  in  the  gravity  of  ail  rites  and  ceremo- 
nies; in  the  composed  temper  of  mind.  God's  worship  rational.  His  spirit 
destroys  not  the  use  of  reason.  The  enthusiastic  spirit  discovered.  The  cir- 
cumstantiating of  fit  time  and  place  for  worship.  The  seventh  day,  on  what 
account  so  much  spoken  of  by  Healhefis.  The  Romans' holy  days.  Cessation 
of  labour  upon  them.  The  solemnity  of  ceremonies  used,  xe^vt-^,  wEfifpavTw- 
fia,  "  Silence  in  devotions."  Exclusion  of  unfit  persons.  Solemnity  of  disci- 
pline: excommunication  among  the  Jews  by  the  sound  of  a  trumpet;  amongst 
Christians  by  a  bell. 

§  1.  The  next  thiiig  in  reference  to  religious  societies  which 
nature  dictates,  is,  TAai  ail  things,  either  pertaini7ig  to  the 
immediate  worshij)  of  God,  or  belonging  to  the  government 
of  that  society,  be  performed  with  the  greatest  solemnity 
and  decency  that  may  be.  Which  dictate  ariseth  from  the 
nature  of  the  things  themselves;  which  being  most  grave  and 
serious,  do  require  the  greatest  gravity  and  seriousness  in  the 
doing  of  them.  And  therefore  any  ceremonies,  actions,  or 
gestures,  which  tend  to  the  discomposing  men's  spirits,  are 
upon  that  account  to  be  exploded  out  of  any  religious  societies, 
as  being  so  directly  repugnant  to  the  nature,  design,  and  per- 
formance of  religious  duties.  Wherefore  that  is  the  standing 
rule  of  all  instituted  ceremonies,  by  the  law  of  nature  in  the 
worship  of  God,  that  they  be  such  as  tend  immediately  to  the 
advancing  the  serenity,  tranquillity,  and  composure  of  their 
minds  who  observe  them;  and  not  such  which  in  their  own 
nature,  or  by  continual  custom  of  the  users  of  them,  do  either 
rarefy  men's  spirits  too  much  into  a  superficial  lightness  and 
vanity  of  spirit;  or  else  sink  them  too  much  below  the  com- 
mand of  reason,  into  the  power  of  unruly  passions.  A  clear 
and  composed  spirit,  is  only  fit  for  converse  with  things  of  so 
high  a  nature.  That  region  which  is  nearest  Heaven,  is  the 
freest  from  clouds  and  vapours,  as  well  as  those  dancing 
meteors,  which  hover  about  in  a  light  uncertain  motion.  It 
16 


122  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

Strangely  unbecomes  the  majesty  of  religious  worship  to  have 
anything  vulgar,  trivial,  much  more  ridiculous  in  it.  The 
worship  of  God  is  -Kat^na.  %oyi.xri,  a  "  rational  worship,"^  as  well 
in  regard  of  that  reason  which  should  moderate  and  govern 
the  manner  of  service,  as  in  regard  of  those  faculties  which 
should  be  most  employed  in  it;  or  the  foundation  which  the 
service  hath  upon  the  dictates  of  men's  natural  reason. 

§  2.  And  as  nature  tells  us,  there  should  be  nothing  too 
light  or  superficial,  so  neither  anything  whereby  men  are  car- 
ried beyond  the  bounds  of  their  own  reason:  for  what  men  do 
at  such  a  time,  is  not  their  own  proper  act,  but  is  more  pro- 
perly to  be  ascribed  to  the  power,  strength,  and  excess  of  a 
melancholy  fancy,  or  else  to  a  higher  enthusiastical  spirit, 
which  then  actuates  and  informs  their  fancies:  and  therefore 
it  hath  been  well  observed,  as  a  characteristic  difference  be- 
tween the  ixwQ  prophetical  s^i'ml,  and  the  false  and  counterfeit; 
that  the  one  leaves  men  in  the  free  use  of  their  reason  and 
faculties;  the  other  alienates  them  by  panic,  fears,  tremblings, 
and  consternations  both  of  body  and  mind.  To  which  pur- 
pose many  evidences  are  brought  by  a  late  learned  writer,  in 
his  Discourse  of  Prophecy  out  of  the  heathen  and  christian 
authors.^  These  latter  discovering  the  vanity  of  the  Monta- 
nisiical  spirit  by  this  one  observation:  which  besides  the 
authors  there  cited,^  (viz.  Clemens  Jllexandrinus^  Miltiades 
ill  Eusebius,  Jerom  and  Chrysostom,)  may  appear  from 
Epiphanius,  who  largely  and  excellently  discourseth  on  this 
subject  when  he  discovers  the  folly  of  Montamis  and  his  fol- 
lowers: and  gives  this  reason  why  they  could  be  no  true 
prophets;  for  those  that  were  so,  had  spiMixsvyjv  -triv  Siavotaj/,  xai 
trjv  8i.8a(3xaXMv  xm  -f^v  SiaT^oy^j/,"  "  a  great  Consistency  of  sense, 
reason,  and  discourse,"  and  instanceth  in  Isaiah  and  Ezekiel: 
for  saith  he,  "  A  true  prophet  had  always  the  free  use  of  his 
reason  and  faculties,  and  spake  from  the  spirit  of  God  with 
consistency  and  coherency  of  discourse."'*  But  it  was  quite 
otherwise  with  the  Montanists.  "They  were  always  trembling, 
used  no  consequence  of  reason  in  discourse;  their  words  had 
no  proper  sense,  but  were  all  dark,  intricate  and  obscure."^ 

•  Rom.  xiii.  1. 

2  Mr.  Smith's  dis.  6,  of  Prophecy,  chap.  4. 

3  Strom.  1,  Eccl.  hist.  I.  5,  17;  prses.  in  Is.  Nahum.  Habak.  Chrys.  in  1  Cor. 
Horn.  29.     Epiph.  hgeres.  48.     Ezek.  iv.  14. 

'^  'O'  7rgo<j»iT>ic  fJ-ita  Kctra^ac-Btef  KoyiTfxsv,  Kai  'rra^ax.o'KiQnaeMi;  sXaXEi  xat  i<pQiyyBra 
IV  7ni£u/u.aT0f  ayiov  ra  Travra  ippaifXivuiXeyaiv. 

5  Ovh  EuraSouvTE;  XaXouvTai  cute  TrafaKoXoySno-iv  Xoyou  e;:^ovte;  Xo^a,  j/aj  nra  wag  sutiks 
•{w/*«Ttt  >j  a-xaXflva  ^  ovity,iai  ojAotutoj  E^^oftEva. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  123 

An  exact  description  of  a  late  prevailing  sect  among  us,  who 
have  their  names  from  those  consternations  they  were  wont  to 
fall  into,  and  whose  language  carried  as  nmch  obscurity  with 
it,  as  any  of  the  followers  of  Montanus  could  wrap  up  theirs 
into.  One  of  the  great  errors  of  Montanus  was,  the  adhering 
to  enthusiasm  and  revelations  beyond  and  beside  the  written 
word;  which  is  the  Helena  of  our  late  opinionists,  because  it 
gives  a  libeHy  for  venting  any  conceptions  of  their  own  brains, 
under  the  pretence  and  disguise  of  a  light  within.  But  we 
see  hence,  how  far  such  tremblings  and  consternations  of  body 
and  mind  are  from  a  true,  sober,  prophetic  spirit;  and  how 
those  Christians  who  lived  in  the  time  when  the  spirit  of 
prophecy  had  not  yet  left  the  church  of  Christ,  (as  appears  by 
Origen,  Tertullian,  and  others:)^  yet  they  always  looked  upon 
any  violent  ecstasy  or  fury,  as  an  evidence  of  a  false  prophet. 
And  therefore  Tertullian,  when  grown  a  Proselyte  of  Mon- 
tanus, endeavours  strongly  to  remove  that  apprehension  of 
the  ecstatical  fury  of  Montanus,  and  Prisca,  and  Maximilla, 
granting  if  it  were  true,  that  it  was  a  mark  of  a  false  and 
counterfeit  prophetical  spirit.  The  true  prophets  I  grant  of 
old,  were  by  the  strength  of  the  impression  of  their  visions 
upon  their  spirits,  sometimes  thrown  into  a  fit  of  trembling; 
but  then  it  was  not  continually  so,  and  when  it  was,  it  might 
be  rather  a  present  astonishment  from  so  strange  and  un- 
wonted a  sight,  (as  is  common  in  such  cases,)  or  else  from  the 
strong  apprehension  they  had  of  the  awful  judgments  God 
threatened  to  the  people;^  but  however,  it  never  took  from 
them  the  free  use  of  their  reason  and  faculties,  which  were 
always  conversant  about  the  matters  revealed  unto  them. 
But  as  Procopius  Gazaru  observes  of  the  false  prophets, 
7'otj  jitati/afft  fotxj^tfav,  "  they  Were  similar  to  mad  men." 
Which  he  takes  notice  of  upon  occasion  of  SauVs  prophecy- 
ing  when  the  evil  spirit  came  upon  him;  and  interprets  with 
the  Jewish  writers,  of  a  madness,  rather  than  true  prophecy. 
Such  as  that  of  Cassandra  when  she  is  brought  in  by  Lyco- 
phron, 

Utt'ring  a  strange,  confused  noise, 
Mucli  like  unto  black  Sphinx's  voice." 

Atfrtsfoy,  saith  Tzo/ze*,  inexpressible,  that  is  7io%%ev  ayta^axoXovOi^'tov, 

1  Orig.  c.  Celsum.  lib.  2,  p.  62.  1.  3,  p.  124.  Tertull.  de  an.  c.  9. 

2  Dan.  X.  11.     Habak.  iii.  16.    Procop.  Gaz.  in  1  Reg.  18.  Ed.  Meursii, 

3  Ae-'jTirov  X.^as'a  TCa.fx.y.iyn  ^onv, 
2<piyyo;  tct\am;  ynpav  oKfxifxov  fjLSVt  vx. — Lycophr.  Alex.  p.  2. 


124  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

"much  incomprehensible,"  which  is  fully  described  by  Lucan, 
of  one  pretending  enthusiasm:  "From  a  tranquil  breast  she 
utters  feigned  words,  attesting  without  the  murmur  of  a  con- 
fused voice,  that  the  mind  was  moved  by  a  sacred  fervour.^ 
And  soon  after,  "  neither  were  her  words  broken  by  a  tremu- 
lous sound,  nor  her  voice  sufficient  to  fill  the  space  of  the 
capacious  cave."^  Whereby  he  discovers  her,  not  to  be  a 
true  enthusiast,  because  she  used  not  such  a  st^-ange  con- 
fused voice  and  tremblings  as  they  did  who  were  their  proper 
enthusiasts,  as  the  sybils  and  the  Pythian  prophetess.  By 
this  we  see,  that  these  earthquakes  of  violent  passions  are 
caused  by  the  prince  of  the  air,  and  not  by  the  gentle  breath- 
ings of  the  Divine  Spirit:  that  these  convulsions  of  men's 
spirits,  are  not  the  consequents  of  the  inhabitation  of  the  good 
Spirit,  but  of  the  violent  intrusion  of  the  evil  one:  that  that 
temper  of  mind  is  most  suitable  to  religion,  which  is  as  well 
free  from  the  bleakness  and  turbulency  of  passion,  as  the 
faint  gleams  of  lightness  and  vanity. 

§  3.  But  a  further  solemnity  than  this  is  required  by  the  dic- 
tates of  nature  too,  which  lies  in  the  circumstantiating  of  time 
and  place,  and  a  dedication  of  both  to  the  end  of  worship.  That 
these  are  very  consonant  to  natural  reason,  appears  by  the 
universal  consent  of  all  nations  agreeing  in  any  form  of  the 
worship  of  a  deity:  who  have  all  had  their  set  times  and  fixed 
places  to  perform  this  worship  in.  I  shall  not  insist  as  some 
have  done,  that  the  seventh  day  hath  been  particularly  and 
solemnly  observed  for  the  worship  of  God  by  the  consent  of 
nations:  although  there  be  many  probable  arguments  and 
plausible  testimonies  brought  for  a  peculiarity  of  honour  to, 
if  not  service  on,  the  seventh  day,  out  of  Josephus,^  Aris- 
tobulus,  Judseus,  (and  by  him  from  Linus,  Hesiod,  Homer,) 
Clemens  Mexandrinus,  Tertullian,  Lampridius,  Seneca, 
Tibullus,  and  many  others.  From  which  testimonies,  it  ap- 
pears that  some  kind  of  reverence  and  honour  was  given  to 
the  seventh  day;  but  whether  that  day  was  the  seventh  of  the 

sub  pectore  ficta  quieto 


Verba  refert,  nullo  confusse  murmure  vocis, 
Inslinctam  sacro  mentern  testata  furore. 

non  rupta  trementi 


Verba  sono,  nee  vox  anlri  complere  capacis 
Sufficiens  spatium 

8  Joseph,  c.  App.  1.  2.  Euseb.  Praep.  1.  13,  cap.  12,  Tertul.  Apol.  c.  16,  c.  Notion. 
1.  1,  c.  13,  Lamprid.  vit.  Alex.  Sever,  ep.  95.  Tibullus,  eleg.  3,  1.  1,  Lucian. 
Pseudol.  p.  893,  ed.  Paris. 


PORMS'OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  125 

week,  or  the  seventh  of  the  month;  (which  was  consecrated 
among  the  Greeks  to  Jipollo,  upon  which  afeo  the  0a^y»j7tta 
festivals  celebrated  alike  to  Diana  and  Apollo,  and  n-uave+ia, 
feasts  chiefly  in  October,  when  pulse  was  dedicated  to  the 
Cynthian  god,  and  the  seventh  of  every  month  was  observed 
in  honour  of  him;)  whether  the  title  QiUe,ov  ',7>a^  "sacred  day," 
did  belong  to  the  seventh  as  one  of  the  £o^fa(jt;itot  or  arto^^a5fj 
"festival  or  inauspicious  days,"  (for  it  was  common  to  both); 
whether  observed  by  any  public  religious  custom,  or  by  some 
private  superstition,  are  things  too  large  to  inquire  into,  and 
not  necessary  for  my  present  purpose;  it  being  sufficient  in 
order  to  that,  if  they  had  any  set  times  at  all  for  worship, 
which  shows  how  solemn  the  worship  of  God  ought  to  be. 
And  this  is  not  denied  by  any,  it  being  so  necessary  a  conse- 
quence of  the  duty  of  worship  that  there  must  be  a  time  for 
performance  of  it.  And  not  only  in  general  that  there  must 
be  some  time,  but  a  sufficient  proportion  of  time  to  be  conse- 
crated to  the  public  exercise  of  piety,  both  from  the  considera- 
tion of  man's  obligation  to  divine  service  from  his  nature, 
from  the  weight  and  concernment  of  the  things  that  time  is 
employed  in,  and  the  inward  sense  of  immortality  upon  the 
soul  of  man.  But  then  what  this  proportion  of  time  must 
exactly  be,  I  see  not  how  mere  natural  light  could  determine 
it,  but  it  would  rather  suggest  it  to  be  highly  reasonable  to 
wait  for  and  expect  such  a  determination  from  the  Supreme 
Rector  and  Governor  of  the  world.  It  being  far  more  fit  for 
the  master  to  prescribe  unto  the  servant  what  proportion  of 
service  he  expects  from  him,  than  that  the  servant  should  both 
divide  and  choose  his  own  time,  and  the  proportion  of  service 
which  he  owes  to  his  master.  Nay,  it  being  so  much  more 
reasonable  for  us  to  wait  for  God's  car,  than  for  a  servant  for 
his  master's,  as  God's  power  and  dominion  over  the  creature 
is  greater  than  that  of  a  master  over  his  servant;  as  it  is  the 
voice  and  sense  of  nature  that  God's  commands  cannot  other- 
wise be  but  just,  holy,  reasonable  and  good:  which  may  be 
otherwise  from  men;  as  the  acceptance  of  our  persons  with 
God,  lies  not  barely  in  the  work  done,  but  in  the  doing  it  out 
of  obedience  to  the  commands  of  God,  which  is  otherwise  with 
men;  as  God  can  give  strength  to  perform  what  he  commands, 
which  man  cannot:  which  things  considered  make  it  evident 
to  be  highly  reasonable  that  God  himself  should  prescribe  the 
proportion  of  time,  and  not  man's  nature.  But  when  God 
hath  thus  determined  it,  nature  cannot  but  assent  to  that  par- 
ticular determination,  that  in  consideration  of  the  works  of 


126  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

God,  it  is  most  reasonable  that  rather  one  day  in  a  week,  than 
one  in  a  montlj,  should  be  dedicated  to  God's  service;  that 
the  seventh  day  of  the  week  upon  God's  resting  on  that  day 
and  sanctifying  it,  should  be  the  precise  day,  unless  some 
reason  equivalent  to  that  of  the  first  institution,  and  approved 
by  God  for  that  end,  be  the  ground  of  its  alteration  to  another 
of  the  seven,  which  is  the  reason  of  the  change  under  the 
gospel, 

§  4.  As  an  evidence  of  the  solemnity  of  times  of  worship, 
the  Romaiis  as  well  as  other  nations  had  their  several  ferise; 
their  days  set  apart  for  the  honour  of  tb.eir  gods.  In  whicli 
Macrobius  tells  us  the  priests  held  them  polhued.^  "  If  any 
work  were  done  upon  those  days  of  rest,  the  day  was  pol- 
luted, and  the  person  punished,"  unless  it  were  as  Umbro 
there  affirms,  in  order  to  the  honour  of  their  gods,  or  for  ne- 
cessaries of  life.  To  which  purpose  Scsevola  answered  him 
that  asked,  what  work  must  be  done  upon  the  ferise:  Quod 
prsetermissum  noceret;  "  What  would  be  spoiled  by  letting 
alone;"  as  taking  an  ox  out  of  a  ditch,  strengthening  a  beam 
likely  to  fall  and  ruin  men;  and  thence  Metro  allowed  it  lawful 
to  wash  sheep,  if  it  were  to  cure,  and  not  merely  to  cleanse 
them. 

In  the  healtliy  stream  to  plunge  the  bleating  flock."^ 

Servius^  informs  us  likewise  that  the  priests,  when  they 
went  to  sacrifice,  sent  their  servants  before  to  bid  all  trades- 
men to  leave  working,  "Lest  by  following  their  work  they 
both  offend  them  and  the  gods  too.  For  these  holy-days  are 
devoted  to  the  service  of  the  gods,"''  Festus^  saith  that  upon 
their  dies  religiosi,  nisi  quod  necesse  est,  nefas  habetur 
facere,  "nothing  but  works  of  pure  necessity  were  to  be 
done."  But  by  dies  religiosi  probably  he  means  the  dies  atri 
et  nefasti;  their  "ominous,  unlucky  days,"  as  they  accounted 
them.  But,  however,  Macrobius  distingaisheth  the  days 
among  the  Romans  into  dies  festi  prof  est  i  et  intercisi.  The 
Festi  were  dedicated  to  the  gods,  the  Profesti  to  their  own 

'  Si  indictis  conceptisque  opus  aliquod  fieret;  prsetereS.  regem  sacrorum  flami- 
nesque  non  licebat  videre  feriis  opus  fieri,  et  ideo  per  praeconem  denuntiabatur 
n6  quid  tale  agerelur,  et  praecepti  negligens  multabatur. — Macrob.  Saturnal.  1,  1, 
c,  16. 

2  Balantumque  gregem  fluvio  mersare  salubri. 

3  Servius  Honor,  in  Vigil.  Gcorgic.  1. 

4  Ne  pro  negolio  suo  et  ipsorum  oculos  et  Deorum  ceremonias  contaminent; 
Ferise  enini  operoe  Deorum  creditae  sunt, 

6  Festus  V,  religios. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  127 

works,  the  Intercisi  were  divided  between  both,  at  some 
hours  of  which  it  was  lawful  to  follow  their  employments,  at 
Others  not.  "While  the  victim  was  killing  no  courts  of 
judicature  were  opened,"^  (in  which  the  praetor  might  fari 
tria  verba  solemnia,  "pronounce  the  three  solemn  words," 
Bo,  dico,  addico;  or  do,  "I  give  the  state  of  the  action  and  ap- 
point the  judges;"  dico,  "pronounce  the  sentence;"  addico,  "I 
adjudge;"  thence  called  dies  fasti  "pleading  days,")  but 
between  the  killing  the  sacrifice  and  offering  up  the  entrails 
{cdiWedi  porrect  a  from  porricere,  exta,  "to  stretch  or  layout 
the  entrails,"  which  was  verbum  sacrificiale  pervetustum, 
"a  very  old  sacrificial  word,"  saith  Turnebus,^  exta  diis  cum 
dabanf,porricere  dicebantur,  "when  they  offered  the  entrails 
to  the  gods  they  were  said  to  stretch  them  out,"  Varro,)  then 
it  was  lawful  to  open  the  courts;  but  again  when  the  sacrifice 
was  offered,  it  was  not.  By  which  we  see  as  from  the  light 
of  nature,  that  what  days  and  times,  whether  weekly, 
monthly,  or  anniversary,  were  designed  and  appointed,  as 
dies  festi,^  for  the  service  of  God,  were  to  be  spent  wholly  in 
order  to  that  end,  and  not  to  give  some  part  to  God,  and  take 
others  to  themselves:  as  they  were  wont  to  do  in  their  sacri- 
fices, to  offer  up  some  part  to  the  gods,  and  feast  upon  the 
rest  themselves;  as  Jithenseiis^  tells  us  that  Conon  and  ^Ici- 
biades  offered  such  hecatombs  to  the  gods,  that  they  enter- 
tained the  people  upon  the  remainders  of  them.  And  from 
hence  we  may  see  how  far  short  of  natural  light  their  religion 
falls,  who  make  no  scruple  of  spending  a  great  part  of  the 
days  devoted  to  God's  worship  in  following  either  their  em- 
ployments or  recreations.  Which  latter  seem  more  directly 
to  impugn  the  end  of  such  time  appointed  than  the  other, 
inasmuch  as  recreations  tend  more  to  the  rarefying  men's 
spirits,  and  evaporating  them  into  lightness  and  vanity,  and 
so  discomposing  them  for  the  duties  of  spiritual  worship,  than 
men's  serious  and  lawful  callings  do.  But  further,  we  ob- 
serve, among  the  Romans  several  days  appointed  for  public 
worship.  Macrobius^  reckons  up  four  sorts  of  them,  Stativss, 
Conceptivse,  Imperativse,  et  Nundinse.  Stativse,  were  the 
set  festival  days  observed  every  year  by  the  whole  people, 
and  marked  for  that  end  in  their  Fasti.  Such  were  the  Jigo- 
iialia,  "in  honour  of  Janus,"  Carmentalia,  "to  Carmenta, 

'  Nam  cum  hostia  casditur,  fari  nefas  est;  inter  eaesa  et  porrecta,  fari  licet; 
rursus  cum  adoletur,  non  licet. 

2  Advers.  1.  24,  c.  13.  3  De  Rust.  1.  1,  c.  29. 

4  Deipnos.  1.  1.  s  Saturn,  1.  1,  c.  16. 


138  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

mother  of  Evander,"  Liipercalia,  "to  Lyceaii  Pan,"  which 
are  marked  with  red  letters  in  the  fasti  coiisulares,  or  the 
Calendarium  Romanum,  "consular  holy-days,  in  the  Roman 
calendar;"  by  Jos.  Scaliger^  cdiWed  Calendarium  Colotisnum, 
which  may  be  seen  at  large  in  Mr.  Selden:  besides  which, 
their  other  anniversary  festivals  are  there  set  down:  which 
Tertullian  saith,  being  all  put  i02,Qi\\GX, pentecostem  implere 
nonpoterunt,  "could  not  make  up  the  number  of  fifty;"  and 
so  not  so  many  as  our  Lord's  days  in  a  year  are.  Concep- 
iivae,  were  such  festivals  as  were  annually  observed,  but  the 
days  of  the  keeping  them  were  every  year  determined  by  the 
magistrates  or  priests,,  as  Latinx,  "the  Latin  holy-days," 
Sernentivse,  "festivals  in  seed  time,"  Paganalia,  "celebrated 
in  villages  to  their  tutelary  gods,  to  tlie  Lares,  in  places 
where  several  ways  meet,'  hence,  Compitalia,  feasts  in 
honour  of  their  rural  gods,  from  compitiini,  place  where 
several  ways  meet,"  Imperative,  were  such  as  the  consuls 
ox prsetors  did  command  at  their  own  pleasure.  Such  were 
their  solemn  supplications  in  times  of  trouble,  and  their  days 
of  triumph  and  thanksgiving  for  victories.  The  Nundinse 
were  those  which  returned  every  ^^  ninth  day, ^^  and  therefore 
the  letter  by  which  they  observed  the  return  of  the  ninth  day, 
was  H,  as  am.ong  us  Christians  G,  which  because  it  notes  the 
return  of  the  Lord's  day,  we  call  the  Dominical  letter.  These 
Nundinse  were  the  days  when  the  country  people  brought  in 
their  wares  into  the  city  to  be  sold,  which  were  anciently 
observed  as  festival  days,  sacred  to  Jupiter;  but  by  the  Lex 
Hortensia  were  made  dies  fasti,  for  determining  the  contro- 
versies that  might  arise  among  the  people  in  their  dealings; 
as  the  court  of  pyepowder  was  instituted  among  us  upon  the 
same  account.  So  much  for  the  solemnity  of  time  used  in 
the  service  of  God. 

§  5.  Another  evidence  of  the  solemnity  of  worship,  was  the 
extraordinary  care  of  the  heathens  in  preparing  themselves 
for  it,  by  cleansing  and  purifying  themselves  with  water,  for 
which  purpose  they  had  their  %i^vi^,  "  lustral  or  concentrated 
water,"  for  cleansing  their  hands,  and  their  xovt^ov,  "  a  bath," 
and  rtf^tp/jaj/tj/pta,  "instruments  for  sprinkling  water  around," 
standing  at  the  porch  of  theij'  temples  for  their  whole  bodies, 
which  custom  was  generally  observed  by  the  heathens,  as  is 
very  obvious  in  the  several  writers  of  their  customs  in  sacri- 
ficing; besides  which  they  observed  likewise  this  washing 

'  De  jure  Nat.  apud  Heb.  1.  3,  cap.  15.    De  Idolol.  c.  14. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  129 

with  water,  by  way  of  lustration  and  expiation  of  their  faults, 
as  Triclinius  the  scholiast  on  Sophocles  tells  us,  it  was  an 
ancient  custom  when  men  had  murdered  others,  vhati  ajtovivluv 
■z-aj  xii'^o-i  Hi  xa^ajieiv  tfov  (*t,aafiato;,  "  to  wash  their  hands  in  ex- 
piation of  their  guilt;"  as  Orestes  did  in  Pausanius  after  the 
killing  his  mother,  and  some  think  Pilate  in  the  gospel  did  so 
for  the  same  end;  but  his  was  only  to  declare  his  innocency, 
and  not  to  expiate  liis  sin,  as  is  observed  by  many  upon 
that  place. ^  But,  however,  from  hence  we  may  take  notice 
of  the  spring  and  fountain  of  the  pope's  holy  water:  which 
was  consecrated  by  Numa  long  before  Alexander  I.  to  whom 
Poly  dare,  Virgil  and  others  attribute  the  first  use  of  it  in  the 
Christian  church:  and  as  the  use  of  it,  and  the  manner  of 
sprinkling  it  is  the  same  among  the  papists,  as  it  was  among 
the  heathen;  so  likewise  the  end  of  it:  witness  the  old  rhyme: 

May  this  consecrated  water  wash  out  my  sins.2 

Wlijch  may  be  sufficiently  answered  with  the  censure  of  a 
heathen; 

Too  easy  souls  who  think  the  spots  of  blood 
Cun  be  wash'd  out  with  every  wat'ry  flood." 

But  from  this  I  pass  to  the  solemnity  in  their  worship  itself, 
evidenced  by  the  general  silence  commanded  in  it;  which 
appears  by  Horace's  Favete  Unguis,  "  favour  with  your 
tongues."  Ovid's  Ore  favent populi  nunc  cum  venit  aurea 
pompa,'^  "  now,  when  comes  the  splendid  pomp,  the  people 
applaud  with  their  acclamations."  VirgiPs  jida  silentia 
sacris,  '•'  silence  favourable  to  sacred  rites."  Festus's  Lin- 
guam  pascite,  i.  e.  coerceto,  "restrain  the  tongue."  The 
Egyptians  setting  Harpocrates*  image  in  the  entrance  to 
their  temples,  and  the  Romans  placing  the  statue  of  Jinge- 
rona  on  the  altar  of  Volupia.  The  Greeks  had  their  xije^vxsu 
"heralds,"  which  did  5j(?D;^ca»'  xai'axj^^ajrVftv  sr  tt^ov^ytats,  "  pro- 
claim silence  to  be  kept  in  their  worship,"  as  Julius  Pollux^ 

1  Horn.  Iliad.  Apoli.  Argon.  1.  1.  Casaub.  ad  Theophr.  tte^i  hia-t^atfA.  i.  Saub. 
de  sacri.  cap.  12.  Paus.  1.  2.  Matlh.  xxvii.  24.  Casaub.  ad  Bar.  exer.  16,  s.  75. 
Baron,  ad  An.  Christi,  34.  Montaculii-.s  Orig.  Eccles.  torn.  1,  1.  2,  p.  388.  Vos- 
sius  Harm.  Evang,  1.  2,  cap.  5,  V.  Mayorum  de  Papaiu,  Rom.  1.  1,  c.  32.  De 
Croy.  Conf.  1,  c.  33.     Ov.  d.  Fast.  lib.  2. 

2  Haec  aqua  benedicta,  deleat  mihi  mea  dtlicta. 

3  Ah  nimium  faciles  qui  tristia  crimina  caedis 
Tolli  fluminea,  posse  putatis  aqua. 

*  V.  Brisson.  de  formulas,  lib.  1,  p.  8. 
5  Onom.  lib.  l,c.  12. 
17 


130  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

tells  US,  which  Plautus  calls  facere  audientiam,  "  to  com- 
mand silence;"  much  as  the  deacons  afterwards  did  in  the 
primitive  church,  who  were  wont  to  command  silence  by 
their  Ovarium,  "  a  handkerchief  kept  to  wave  before  the 
people,"  and  were  thence  called  xrieyxn  among  the  Christians, 
(for  although  xtie^itlsiv,  as  applied  to  the  bishop  and  presby- 
ters, did  signify  dfianv,  "to  discourse,"  and  srtayys-ki^sseM  to 
preach;  yet  as  it  was  applied  to  the  deacons,  it  implied  only 
their  commanding  silence  in  order  to  the  prayers  of  the  cate- 
chumejis,  called  Tta^aOsatii,  "  a  precept  or  its  sign,"  as  Ariste- 
nus^  observes  on  Concil.  Carthag.  can.  106;  but  this  by  the 
way.)  The  for7nula  used  by  the  Greeks  in  commanding 
silence,  was,  axovits  xaoc,  to  which  Aristonicus  the  fiddler 
alluded  when  in  the  market-place  of  Mylossa,  a  town  in 
Caria,  he  saw  many  temples,  and  but  few  citizens,  he  cried 
out  axoviti  vaoi,  instead  of  axovitt  xaoi.,  "  hear  ye  temples,  in- 
stead of  hear  ye  people."^  But  I  pass  these  things  over,  as 
being  commonly  known,  only  observing  from  them  the  solem- 
nity of  their  public  devotions;  which  is  further  seen  in  their 
solemnly  excluding  unfit  persons  from  partaking  with  them 
in  their  sacrifices.  Of  which  Virgil,  Ovid,  Statins,  Silius 
Italicus,  and  others  among  the  Romans'^  speak;  and  the  lictor 
in  some  sacrifices  stood  up,  saith  Festus,  and  cried  aloud, 
'■^Hostis,  mulier  vinctus  exesto,  i.  e.  extra  esto,  "  an  enemy, 
a  woman,  a  criminal,  stand  without;"  and  to  keep  unfit  per- 
sons the  better  off,  the  Flamines,  "  high  priest,"  had  a  com- 
mentaculum,  "  a  kind  of  rod,"  in  their  hands.  Among  the 
Greeks  the  old  form  continued  from  Orpheus  or  Onomacritus 
his  Orphaica,  'ixai,  ixa^egi  j8f (?)??iot,  "  far,  far  off,  ye  profane," 
and  those  that  sacrifice,  asked  tvi  tri8s,  "  who  is  here?"  the  other 
answered,  7to7.-Koi,  xayadot,  '•  many,  and  the  good."^  From  all 
these  things  laid  together,  we  see  the  great  solemnity  used  by 
them  in  their  worship,  which  considered  in  itself,  was  not  the 
product  of  superstition,  but  a  dictate  of  the  law  of  nature. 
And  it  seems  most  natural  to  the  acts  of  discipline,  that  they 
should  be  performed  in  the  most  public  solemn  manner,  and 
not  in  any  private  clandestine  way;  which  being  so  done,  oft 
times  lose  the  designed  effect  of  them,  in  making  men  sensible 
and  ashamed  of  those  miscarriages  which  made  them  deserve 
so  sharp  and  severe  a  censure.   Thence  among  the  Jeivs,  their 

1  V.  Bau.  5.     Alldison  de  Marthece,  vet.  Eccles.  p.  45,  et  c.  1. 

2  Anthcnius,  Deipnos.  8,  c.  8. 

3  V.  Apud.  Briss.  de  formula,  1.  ],ct  apud  Seld.  de  Syned.  lib.  2,  cap.  10. 
*  Suidas  in  Tjf  riiS'g. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  13 

solemn  sentence  of  the  greater  excommunication  was  pro- 
nounced by  the  sound  of  a  trumpet;  and  so  they  say  Meroz 
was  excommunicated  with  four  hundred  trumpets;^  and  the 
same  number  they  report  were  used  in  excommunicating 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  which  was  usually  done  by  the  magis- 
trate, or  the  rector  of  the  university:  as  they  tell  us  a  story  of 
a  man  coming  to  buy  flesh  at  Pombeditha,  (which  was  one 
of  the  three  universities  of  the  remaining  Jeivs  in  Chaldea, 
after  the  return  from  captivity,  the  others  were  Sora  and  Ne- 
harda,)  but  otfering  some  opprobrious  language  to  R.  Jehuda, 
then  governor  of  the  university,  he  makes  no  more  to  do,  but 
prolatus  tubis  hominen  excomrriunicavit ,  "  brings  out  his 
trumpets  and  excommunicates  him."  And  as  the  use  of  bells, 
since  their  invention,  did  supply  the  former  use  of  trumpets  in 
calling  the  congregation  together,  (which  I  suppose  was  the 
account  of  using  trumpets  in  excommunicating  from  the  con- 
gregation,) so  it  seems  the  bells  were  sometimes  used  to  ring 
men  out  of,  as  well  as  into  the  church;  thence  the  solemn 
monkish  curse,  cursing  men  with  bell,  book  and  candle,  which 
can  have  no  other  sense  but  from  this  practice.  So  much  shall 
suffice  to  show  the  foundation  which  the  solemnity  of  worship, 
and  the  acts  belonging  to  it,  have  in  the  dictates  of  nature 
manifested  by  the  voice  and  consent  of  nations. 

'  Job.  Cocli.  Excerpt.  Gen.  Sandhed.  cap.  1,  p.  146.   Vostius  in  Pirke  Elicsest. 
p.  216.     Selden  de  Syned.  1.  1,  cap.  7. 


132  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 


CHAPTER    VI. 

The  fourth  thing  dictated  by  the  Law  of  Nature,  that  there  must  be  a  way  to 
end  controversies  arising,  which  tend  to  break  the  peace  of  the  society.  The 
nature  of  schism  considered;  liberty  of  judgment  and  authority  distinguished; 
the  latter  must  be  parted  with  in  religious  societies  as  to  private  persons.  What 
way  the  light  of  nature  directs  to,  for  ending  controversies,  in  an  equality  of 
power,  that  the  less  number  yield  to  the  greater:  on  what  Law  of  Nature  that 
is  founded.  In  a  subordination  of  power  that  there  must  be  a  liberty  of  ap- 
peals defined.  Independency  of  particular  congregations  considered.  Elective 
Synods.  Tlie  original  of  church  government  as  to  congregations.  The  case 
paralleled  between  civil  and  church  government.  Where  appeals  finally  lodge. 
The  power  of  calling  synods,  and  confirming  their  acts  in  the  magistrate. 

§  I.  Tn-R  fourth  thing  which  nature  dictates  in  reference  to 
a  church  society,  is,  That  there  must  be  a  way  agreed  upon 
to  determine  and  decide  all  those  controversies  arising  in 
this  society,  which  iynmediatety  tend  to  the  breaking  the 
peace  and  unity  of  it.  We  have  seen  already  that  natural 
reason  requires  a  disparity  between  persons  in  a  society:  to 
form  and  constitute  a  society,  there  must  be  ^rder  and  power 
in  some,  there  must  be  inferiority  and  subjection  in  others 
answering  to  the  former:  and  by  these  we  suppose  a  society 
to  be  now  modelled.  But  nature  must  either  be  supposed 
defective  in  its  designs  and  contrivances  as  to  the  necessaries 
required  for  the  management  of  them;  or  else  there  must  like- 
wise be  implied  a  sufficient  provision  for  the  maintenance  and 
preservation  of  the  societies  thus  entered  into.  It  is  no  wise 
agreeable  to  the  wisdom  of  nature  to  erect  a  fabric  with  such 
materials,  which  though  they  may  lie  one  upon  the  other,  yet 
if  not  fitly  compacted  together,  will  fall  in  pieces  again  as 
soon  as  it  is  set  up:  nor  yet  to  frame  a  body  with  mere  flesh 
and  bones,  and  the  superiority  of  some  members  above  the 
others;  for  unless  there  be  joints  and  sinews  and  ligatures  to 
hold  the  parts  together,  the  dissolution  will  immediately  fol- 
low the  formation  of  it.  The  end  and  design  of  nature  is, 
preservation  and  continuance,  and  therefore  things  necessary 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT,  ISS 

in  order  to  that,  must  be  implied  in  the  first  design  of  the 
being  of  the  thing;  so  that  at  least,  as  to  itself,  there  be  no 
defect  in  order  to  that.  This  must  in  reason  be  supposed  in 
all  societies,  that  when  they  are  first  entered,  it  must  be  upon 
such  terms  as  may  be  sufficient  to  maintain  and  keep  up  those 
societies  in  that  peace  and  order  which  is  requisite  in  order  to 
the  continuance  of  them.  For  what  diseases  are  to  bodies, 
age  and  fire  are  to  buildings,  that  divisions  and  animosities 
are  to  societies,  all  equally  tending  to  the  ruin  and  destruction 
of  the  things  they  seize  upon.  And  as  bodies  are  furnished 
by  nature,  not  only  with  a  receptive  and  concoctive  faculty, 
of  what  tends  to  their  nourishment,  but  with  an  expulsive 
faculty  of  what  would  tend  to  the  ruin  of  it;  so  all  civil 
bodies  must  not  only  have  ways  to  strengthen  them,  but  must 
have  likewise  a  power  to  expel  and  disperse  those  noxious 
humours  and  qualities  which  tend  to  dissolve  the  frame,  and 
constitution  of  them.  A  power  then  to  prevent  mischiefs  is 
as  necessary  in  a  society,  as  a  power  to  settle  things  in  order 
to  the  advancement  of  the  common  good  of  society.  This, 
therefore,  the  church  as  a  religious  society  must  likewise  be 
endowed  with,  viz.  a  power  to  maintain  itself,  and  keep  up  its 
peace  and  unity:  which  cannot  otherwise  be  supposed,  (con- 
sidering the  bilious  humour  in  men's  natures,  not  wholly 
purged  out  by  Christianity,)  without  some  way  to  decide  con- 
troversies which  will  arise,  disturbing  the  peace  of  it.  For 
the  clearing  of  this,  which  much  concerns  the  power  and 
government  of  the  church,  we  shall  consider  what  the  con- 
troversies are  which  tend  to  break  the  church's  peace;  and 
what  way  the  law  of  nature  finds  out  for  the  ending  of  them, 
which  we  are  the  more  necessitated  to  speak  of,  because 
nothing  hath  begotten  controversies  more  than  the  power  of 
determining  them  hath  done. 

§  2.  The  controversies  then  which  tend  to  break  the  peace 
of  a  religious  society,  are  either  matter  of  different  practice,  or 
matter  of  different  opinion.  The  former,  if  it  comes  from  no 
just  and  necessary  cause,  and  ends  in  a  total  separation  from 
that  society  the  person  guilty  of  it  was  joined  with,  is  justly 
called  schism;  which,  (as  one  defines  it,)  is  an  ecclesiastical 
sedition,  as  sedition  is  a  lay-schism;  both  being  directly  con- 
trary to  that  communion  and  friendliness  which  should  be 
preserved  in  all  societies.  The  latter,  if  impugning  somewhat 
fundamentally,  in  order  to  the  end  of  constituting  religious 
societies,  or  being  a  less  matter,  if  wilfully  taken  up,  and 
obstinately  maintained,  is  called  heresy;  which  two  are  sel- 


134  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

dom  seen  out  of  each  other's  company,  and  when  they  are 
together,  are  Hke  the  blind  and  lame  man  in  the  fable,  the 
one  lent  the  other  eyes,  and  the  other  lent  him  feet:  one  to 
find  out  what  they  desired,  the  other  to  run  away  with  it 
when  they  had  it.  The  heretic  useth  his  eyes  to  spy  out 
some  cause  or  pretence  of  deserting  communion;  the  schisma- 
tic helps  him  with  his  legs  to  run  away  from  it;  but  be- 
tween them  both,  they  rob  the  church  of  its  peace  and  unity. 
But  in  order  to  the  making  clear  what  the  church's  power  is 
in  reference  to  these,  we  are  to  take  notice  of  these  things. 
First,  that  the  church  hath  no  direct  immediate  power  over 
men's  opinions:  so  that  a  matter  of  mere  different  opinion  lies 
not  properly  within  the  cognizance  of  any  church  power;  the 
reason  of  it  is  this,  because  the  end  of  power  lodged  in  the 
church,  is  to  preserve  the  peace  and  unity  of  itself;  now  a  mere 
different  opinion  doth  not  violate  the  bonds  of  society;  Opini- 
onum  diversitas  et  opinantium  unitas  non  sunt  aovja'j'a, 
"  The  diversity  of  opinions,  and  the  union  of  those  that  opine 
are  not  inconsistencies."  Men  may  preserve  communion 
under  different  apprehensions.  So  long  then  as  diversity  of 
opinion  tends  not  to  the  breaking  the  quiet  and  tranquillity  of 
the  church  of  God,  a  man  may  safely  enjoy  his  own  private 
apprehensions,  as  to  any  danger  of  molestation  from  church 
governors;  that  is,  so  long  as  a  man  keeps  his  opinion  to  him- 
self, and  hath  the  power  of  being  his  own  counsellor.  It  is 
not  the  difference  of  opinion  formally  considered  when  it  is 
divulged  abroad  that  is  punishable,  but  the  tendency  to 
schism,  which  lies  in  the  divulging  of  it,  and  drawing  others 
away  from  the  received  truths:  for  the  opinion  itself  is  an 
internal  act  of  the  mind,  and  therefore  is  punishable  by  no 
external  power,  as  that  of  the  magistrate  or  church  is;  as  no 
internal  action  is  under  the  jurisdiction  or  authority  of  a 
magistrate,  any  further  than  as  necessarily  conjoined  with  the 
outward  action,  or  as  it  hath  a  direct  influence  upon  it.  The 
case  of  blasphemy,  which  is  a  thing  of  the  highest  nature  in 
this  kind,  is  not  punishable  by  men,  as  blasphemy  implies 
low  and  undervaluing  thoughts  of  God;  but  as  being  a  thing 
divulged,  (else  no  formal  blasphemy,)  it  tends  apparently  to 
the  dishonour  of  God,  and  consequently  to  the  breaking  in 
pieces  all  such  societies,  whose  great  foundation  is  the  belief 
of  the  majesty  and  glory  of  God.  So  idolatry  under  the  law 
was  punished,  as  it  was  immediately  destructive  of  that  obe- 
dience which  men  did  owe  to  the  true  God.  And  under  the 
Gospel,  it  is  not  mere  difference  of  opinion,  judgment,  and 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  135 

apprehension,  which  lays  men  open  to  the  censures  of  that 
power  which  moderates  and  rules  a  religious  society;  but  the 
endeavour  by  difference  of  opinion  to  alienate  men's  spirits 
one  from  another,  and  thereby  to  break  the  society  into  frac- 
tions and  divisions,  is  that  which  makes  men  liable  to  restraint 
and  punishment.  From  whence  it  follows,  that  where  the 
peace  and  unity  of  the  church  may  be  preserved,  and  yet  men 
keep  up  different  apprehensions  of  things,  there  is  nothing 
deserving  any  severe  animadversion  from  the  rulers  of  that 
society:  for  a  power  corrective,  and  vindictive,  must  suppose 
something  acted  contrary  to  the  laws  and  rules  of  the  society, 
and  the  end  of  comrhilting  that  power  into  the  hands  of 
governors;  now  here  is  nothing  of  that  nature;  for  the  laws  of 
mutual  society  are  observed;  and  the  end  of  church  govern- 
ment is  to  see  nh  quid  Ecclesia  detrimenti  capiat,  "lest  the 
church"  as  a  society  "  be  any  ways  prejudiced;"  which  can- 
not be  while  men  maintain  that  love,  affection,  and  commu- 
nion which  becomes  the  members  of  such  a  society.  The 
unity  then  required  in  the  church,  is  not  an  unity  of  judgment 
and  apprehension  among  the  members  of  it,  which  though  it 
be  their  duty  to  endeavour  after,  yet  it  is  no  further  attainable 
by  men's  endeavours  than  Adamic  perfection  is;  and  Unio^ 
Christianorum  in  this  sense,  is  one  of  the  jewels  belonging  to 
the  crown  of  Heaven.  There  is  no  necessity  then  of  inquiring 
after  an  infallible  judge  of  controversies,  unless  we  had  some 
promise  and  assurance  from  Christ,  that  the  members  of  his 
church  should  never  differ  in  their  judgments  from  one  ano- 
ther, and  then  what  need  of  an  infallible  judge?  and  if  Christ 
had  appointed  an  infallible  judge,  he  would  have  infallibly 
discovered  it  to  the  minds  of  all  sober  men;  or  else  his  infaUi- 
bility  could  never  attain  its  end:  for  while  I  question  whether 
my  judge  be  infallible  or  not,  I  cannot  infallibly  assent  to  any 
of  his  determinations.  And  where  there  is  no  ground  for  an 
infallible  judge,  for  any  to  pretend  to  it,  is  the  worst  of  sup- 
posable  errors,  because  it  renders  all  others  incurable  by  that 
apprehension,  and  takes  away  all  possibility  of  repentance 
while  men  are  under  that  persuasion.  The  unity  then  of  the 
church,  is  that  of  communion,  and  not  that  of  apprehension; 
and  diff'erent  opinions  are  no  further  liable  to  censures,  than 

'  This  seems  designedly  to  have  been  a  play  upon  the  words,  for  Unitaa 
Christianorum,  is  the  unity  of  Christians,  but  Unio  Christianorum,  the  pearl  of 
Christians;  and  the  unity  of  Christians  will  certainly  be  the  pearl  of  Christians 
at  last — Am.  Ed. 


136  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

as  men  by  the  broaching  of  them,  do  endeavour  to  disturb  the 
peace  of  the  church  of  God. 

§  3.  That  then  which  seems  most  hable  to  censures  in  a 
church,  is  schism,  as  being  immediately  destructive  of  that 
communion  which  should  be  maintained  in  a  rehgious  society. 
But  as  to  this  too,  we  must  observe  something  further,  and 
not  to  think  and  judge  everything  to  deserve  the  name,  which 
is  by  many  called  schism;  it  being  well  observed  by  a  very 
learned  and  judicious  divine;^  "  that  heresy  and  schism,  as  they 
are  commonly  used,  are  two  theological  scarecrows,  with 
which,  they  who  use  to  uphold  a  party  in  religion,  use  to 
fright  away  such,  as  making  inquiry  into  it,  are  ready  to  re- 
linquish and  oppose  it;  if  it  appear  either  erroneous  or  suspi- 
cious. For  as  Plutarch  reports  of  a  painter,  who  having  un- 
skilfully painted  a  cock,  chased  away  all  cocks  and  hens,  that 
so  the  imperfection  of  his  art  might  not  appear  by  comparison 
with  nature;  so  men  willing  for  ends,  to  admit  of  no  fancy  but 
their  own,  endeavour  to  hinder  an  inquiry  into  it,  by  way  of 
comparison  of  somewhat  with  it,  peradventure  truer,  that  so 
the  deformity  of  their  own  might  not  appear."  Thus  he. 
Schism  then,  as  it  imports  a  separation  from  communion  with 
a  church  society,  is  not  a  thing  intrinsically  and  formally  evil 
in  itself,  but  is  capable  of  the  differences  of  good  and  evil  ac- 
cording to  the  grounds,  reasons,  ends,  and  circumstances  in- 
ducing to  such  a  separation.  The  withdrawing  from  society, 
is  but  the  materiality  of  schism;  the  formality  of  it  must  be 
fetched  from  the  grounds  on  which  that  is  built.  It  is  there- 
fore a  subject  which  deserves  a  strict  inquiry,  what  things 
those  are  which  may  make  a  withdrawing  from  a  religious 
society,  to  which  a  man  is  joined,  to  be  lawful:  for  as  it  is  a 
great  sin  on  the  one  hand,  unnecessarily  to  divide  and  sepa- 
rate from  church  society;  so  it  is  an  offence  on  the  other  side, 
to  continue  communion  when  it  is  a  duty  to  withdraw.  For 
the  resolving  of  this  knotty  and  intricate  question,  I  shall  lay 
down  some  things  by  way  of  premisal,  and  come  closely  to 
the  resolution  of  it. 

First,  Every  Christian  is  under  an  obligation  to  join  in 
church  society  with  others,  because  it  is  his  duty  to  profess 
himself  a  Christian,  and  to  own  his  religion  publicly,  and  to 
partake  of  the  ordinances  and  sacraments  of  the  gospel, 
which  cannot  be  without  society  with  some  church  or  other. 
Every  Christian  as  such,  is  bound  to  look  upon  himself  as  the 

'  Tract  of  schism,  1642. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  137 

member  of  a  body,  viz.  the  visible  church  of  Christ;  and  how- 
can  he  be  known  to  be  a  member,  who  is  not  united  with 
other  parts  of  the  body?  There  is  then  an  obHgation  upon 
all  Christians,  to  engage  in  a  religious  society  with  others,  for 
partaking  of  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel.  It  hath  been  a 
case  disputed  by  some,  (particularly  by  Grotius  the  supposed 
author  of  a  little  tract,  .^ti  semper  sit  communicandum  per 
symbola?  "Whether  we  should  always  communicate  by 
signs?"  when  he  designed  the  Syncretism  with  the  church  of 
Rome,)  whether  in  a  time  when  churches  are  divided,  it  be  a 
Christian's  duty  to  communicate  with  any  of  those  parties 
which  divide  the  church,  and  not  rather  to  suspend  commu- 
nion from  all  of  them.  A  case  not  hard  to  be  decided;  for 
either  the  person  questioning  it,  doth  suppose  the  churches 
divided  to  remain  true  churches,  but  some  to  be  more  pure 
than  others,  in  which  case,  by  virtue  of  his  general  obligation 
to  communion,  he  is  bound  to  adhere  to  that  church  which 
appears  most  to  retain  its  evangelical  purity;  or  else  he 
must  suppose  one  to  be  a  true  church,  and  the  other  not,  in 
which  the  case  is  clearer,  that  he  is  bound  to  communicate 
with  the  true  church:  or  he  must  judge  them  alike  impure, 
which  is  a  case  hard  to  be  found;  but  supposing  it  is  so,  either 
he  hath  joined  formerly  with  one  of  them,  or  he  is  now  to 
choose  which  to  join  with;  if  he  be  joined  already  with  that 
church,  and  sees  no  other  but  as  impure  as  that,  he  is  bound 
to  declare  against  the  impurity  of  the  church,  and  to  continue 
his  communion  with  it;  if  he  be  to  choose  communion,  he 
may  so  long  suspend  till  he  be  satisfied  which  church  comes 
nearest  to  the  primitive  constitution,  and  no  longer.  And 
therefore  I  know  not  whether  Chrysostom^s  act  were  to  be 
commended,  who  after  being  made  a  deacon  in  the  church  of 
Jintioch  by  Meletius^  upon  his  death,  because  Flavianus 
came  in  irregularly  as  bishop  of  the  church,  would  neither 
communicate  with  him,  nor  with  Paulinus,  another  bishop  at 
that  time  in  the  city,  nor  with  the  Meletians,  but  for  three 
years  time  withdrew  himself  from  communion  with  any  of 
them.  Much  less  were  the  Atax^ivojitfi/ot,  "the  separatists,"  or 
Haesitantes  as  the  Latins  called  them,  to  be  commended, 
who  after  the  determination  of  the  Cowicil  of  Chalcedon 
against  Eutyches,^  because  of  great  differences  remaining  in 
Egyjjt  and  the  eastern  churches,  followed  Zenoes  Henoti- 

1  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  lib.  5,  cap.  3. 

2  V.  Petlavii.  Diotrib.  de  Potest,  consa.  et  com,  usurp,  cap.  4. 

18 


isfe 


THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 


curtly  and  would  communicate  neither  with  the  orthodox 
churches,  nor  Eutychians.  But  I  see  not  what  censure 
Jerome  could  incur,  who  going  into  the  diocess  of  Antioch, 
and  finding  the  churches  there  under  great  divisions,  there 
being  besides  the  Jlrian  bishop,  three  others  in  the  church  of 
Jintioch,  Meletiiis,  PauHniis,  and  Vitalis,  did  so  long  suspend 
communion  with  any  of  them,  till  he  had  satisfied  himself 
about  the  occasion  of  the  schism,  and  the  innocency  of  the 
persons  and  churches  engaged  in  it.  But  if  he  had  with- 
drawn longer,  he  had  off'ended  against  his  obligation  to  join 
in  church  society  with  others,  for  participation  of  gospel  ordi- 
nances; which  is  the  necessary  duty  of  every  Christian. 

§  4.  Secondly,  Every  Christian  actually  joined  in  church 
society  luith  others,  is  so  long  hound  to  maintain  society 
ivith  them  till  his  com,munion  ivith  them  becomes  sin.  For 
nothing  else  can  justify  withdrawing  from  such  a  society,  but 
the  unlawfulness  of  continuing  any  longer  in  it.  Supposing 
a  church  then  to  remain  true,  as  to  its  constitution  and  essen- 
tials, but  there  be  many  corruptions  crept  into  that  church; 
whether  is  it  the  duty  of  a  Christian  to  withdraw  from  that 
church  because  of  those  corruptions,  and  to  gather  new 
churches  only  for  purer  administration,  or  to  join  with  them 
only  for  that  end?  This,  as  far  as  I  understand  it,  is  the  state 
of  the  controversy  between  our  parochial  churches  and  the 
congregational.  The  resolution  of  this  great  question  must 
depend  on  this:  Whether  is  it  a  sin  to  communicate  with 
churches  true  as  to  essentials,  but  supposed  corrupt  in  the 
exercise  of  discipline?  For  parochial  churches  are  not  de- 
nied to  have  the  essentials  of  true  churches  by  any  sober 
congregational  men.  For  there  is  in  them  the  true  word  of 
God  preached,  the  true  sacraments  administered,  and  an  im- 
plicit covenant  between  pastor  aud  people,  in  their  joining 
together.  All  that  is  pleaded,  then,  is  corruption,  and  defect 
in  the  exercise  and  administration  of  church  order  and  dis- 
cipline. Now  that  it  is  lawful  for  Christians  to  join  with 
churches  so  defective,  is  not  only  acknowledged  by  the  Reve- 
rend Mr.  Norton  in  his  answer  to  Apolliiis^  but  largely  and 
fully  proved.  For  which  he  lays  down  five  propositions 
which  deserve  to  be  seriously  considered,  by  all  which  make 
that  a  plea  for  withdrawing  from  society  with  other  churches. 
First,  A  believer  may  lawfully  join  himself  in  communion 
with  such  a  church,  where  he  cannot  enjoy  all  the  ordinances 

'  Kesponp.  ad  Syilog'.  Qnest.  nap,  IG. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  139 

of  God;  as  in  the  Jewish  church,  in  our  Saviour's  time, 
which  refused  the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  the  baptism  of  John; 
and  yet  our  Saviour  bids  us  hear  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
sitting  in  Moses'  chair,  which  hearing,  saith  he,  doth  imply 
conjunctionem  ecclesiae  Jtidaicx,  "  a  joining  with  the  Jewish 
church:"  and  so  witli  churches  rejecting  an  article  of  faith; 
in  the  church  of  Corinth  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  in 
the  churches  of  Galatia  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith; 
but  the  apostle  nowhere  requires  separation  on  that  account 
from  them.  Secondly,  A  believer  may  lawfully  join  in  com- 
munion with  such  a  church,  in  which  some  corruption  in  the 
worship  of  God  is  tolerated  without  reformation.  As  the 
offering  on  high  places  from  Solomon  to  Hezekiah  in  the 
church  of  Judah,  observation  of  circumcision,  and  the  neces- 
sity of  keeping  the  ceremonial  law  in  the  churches  of  Galatia. 
Thirdly,  A  believer  may  lawfully  join  himself  in  communion 
with  such  a  charch  in  which  such  are  admitted  to  sacraments 
who  give  no  evident  signs  of  grace,  but  seem  to  be  lovers  of 
this  world;  which  he  proves,  because  it  is  every  one's  main 
duty  to  examine  himself;  and  because  another's  sin  is  no 
hurt  to  him,  and  therefore  cannot  keep  him  from  his  duty; 
and  then  by  men's  coming  unworthily,  non  polluitur  com- 
miinio,  licet  minuitur  consolatio,  '-the  communion  is  not 
defiled,  though  the  comfort  of  it  be  diminished."  He  brings 
an  instance  from  the  church  of  Corinth,^  among  whom  were 
many  scandalous  persons  that  had  not  repented,  2  Cor.  xii. 
20,  21.  So  in  the  Jewish  church  which  lay  under  great  cor- 
ruptions, when  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles  communicated 
with  it.  Fourthly,  Although  a  believer  join  with  such  a 
church,  he  is  not  therefore  bound  with  the  guilt,  nor  defiled 
with  the  pollutions  of  others;  which  he  proves,  because  it  is 
lawful  to  do  it,  and  so  he  contracts  no  guilt  by  it.  Fifthly,  a 
believer  that  hath  joined  himself  to  such  a  church,  is  not 
bound  to  withdraw,  and  separate  from  such  a  church  under 
pain  of  guilt  if  he  doth  it  not,  because  it  implies  a  contradic- 
tion to  be  lawful  to  join  to  such  a  church,  and  yet  unlawful 
to  continue  in  its  communion;  for  that  speaks  it  to  be  a 
church,  and  this  latter  to  be  no  church;  and  by  that  he  doth 
imply  it  to  be  unlawful  to  separate  from  any  society  which  is 
acknowledged  to  be  a  true  church.  Thus  for  that  learned 
and  reverend  man,  by  whom  we  see  that  the  received  prin- 
ciples of  the  sober  and  moderate  part  of  those  of  that  per- 

•  I  Cor.  xiv.  34;  1  Cor.  vi.  4—15. 


140  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

suasion,  are  not  at  such  a  distance  from  others,  as  many 
imagine.  We  see  then  that  communicating  with  a  church 
not  so  pure  as  we  desire,  is  no  sin  by  the  arguments  by  him 
produced.  And  how  it  should  be  then  lawful  to  withdraw 
from  such  a  church,  merely  for  purer  communion,  I  under- 
stand not.  This  I  am  sure  was  not  the  case  of  our  churches 
in  their  separation  from  the  church  of  Rome:  the  main 
ground  of  which  was  the  sin  of  communicating  with  that 
church  in  her  idolatry  and  superstition,  and  the  impossibility 
of  communicating  with  her,  and  not  partaking  of  her  sins, 
because  she  required  a  profession  of  her  errors,  and  the  prac- 
tice of  her  idolatry,  as  the  necessary  conditions  of  her  commu- 
nion, in  which  case  it  is  a  sin  to  communicate  with  her. 

§  5.  And  this  leads  me  now  to  a  closer  resolution  of  the 
case  of  withdrawing  from  churches  in  which  men  have  for- 
merly been  associated,  and  the  grounds  which  may  make 
such  a  withdrawing  lawful.  In  order  to  that  we  must  distin- 
guish between  these  things.  First,  between  corruptions  in 
the  doctrine  of  a  church,  and  corruptions  in  the  practice  of 
a  church.  Secondly,  between  corruptions  whether  in  doc- 
trine, or  practice,  jf?rq/e55e^  and  avowed  by  a  church,  and  re- 
quired as  co7iditions  of  communion  in  all  members  of  it,  and 
corruptions  crept  in,  and  only  tolerated  in  a  church. 
Thirdly,  between  non-communion  as  to  the  abuses  of  a 
church,  and  a  positive  and  total  separation  from  a  church, 
as  it  is  such.  From  these  things  I  lay  down  these  following 
propositions. 

First,  where  any  church  is  guilty  of  corruptions,  both  in 
doctrine  and  practice,  ivhich  it  avoweth  and  prof esseth,  and 
requireth  the  owning  them  as  necessary  conditions  of  com- 
munion tvith  her,  there  a  non-communion  with  that  church 
is  necessary,  and  a  total  and  positive  separation  is  laivful 
and  convenient.  I  have  said  already  that  the  necessity  and 
lawfulness  of  this  departing  from  communion  with  any  church 
is  wholly  to  be  resolved  by  an  inquiry  into  the  grounds  and 
reasons  of  the  action  itself  So  that  the  matter  of  fact  must 
of  necessity  be  discussed,  before  the  matter  of  law  as  to  sepa- 
ration from  the  church  be  brought  into  debate.  If  there  be  a 
just  and  necessary  cause  for  separation,  it  must  needs  be  just 
and  necessary;  therefore  the  cause  must  be  the  ground  of  re- 
solving the  nature  of  the  action.  Schism  then  is  a  separation 
from  any  church  upon  any  slight,  trivial,  unnecessary  cause; 
but  if  the  cause  be  great  and  important,  a  departure  it  may 
be,  schism  it  cannot  be.     They  who  define  scliism  to  be  a 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  141 

voluntary  separation  from  the  church  of  God;  if  by  voluntary, 

they  mean  that  where  the  will  is  the  cause  of  it,  the  definition 
stands  good  and  true;  for  that  must  needs  be  groundless  and 
unnecessary  as  to  the  church  itself:  but  if  by  voluntary  be 
meant  a  spontaneous  departing  from  communion  with  a 
church,  which  was  caused  by  the  corruptions  of  that  church, 
then  a  separation  may  be  so  voluntary,  and  yet  no  schism: 
for  though  it  be  voluntary,  as  to  the  act  of  departing,  yet  that 
is  only  consequentially,  supposing  a  cause  sufficient  to  take 
such  a  resolution;  but  what  is  voluntary  antecedently,  that  it 
hath  no  other  motive  but  faction  and  humour,  that  is  properly 
schism,  and  ought  so  to  be  looked  upon.  But  in  our  present 
case,  three  things  are  supposed  as  the  causes  and  motives  to 
such  forsaking  a  communion.  First,  corruption  in  doctrine; 
the  main  ligature  of  a  religious  society  is  the  consent  of  it  in 
doctrine  with  the  rule  of  religion,  the  word  of  God.  There- 
fore anything  which  tends  to  subvert  and  overthrow  the  foun- 
dation of  the  gathering  such  a  society,  (which  is  the  possession 
and  practice  of  the  true  religion,)  yields  sufficient  ground  to 
withdraw  from  communion  with  those  who  profess  and  main- 
tain it.  Not  that  every  small  error  is  a  just  ground  of  separa- 
tion, for  then  there  would  be  no  end  of  separation,  and  men 
must  separate  from  one  another,  till  knowledge  comes  to  its 
perfection,  which  will  only  be  in  glory;  but  anything  which 
eitherdirectlyor  consequentially  destroys  any  fundamental  arti- 
cle of  Christian  faith;  which  may  be  as  well  done  by  adding  to 
fundamental  articles,  as  by  plainly  denying  them.  And  my 
reason  is  this:  because  the  very  ratio  of  a  fundamental  article 
doth  imply,  not  only  its  necessity  to  be  believed  and  prac- 
tised, (and  the  former  in  reference  to  the  latter,  for  things  are 
therefore  necessary  to  be  known,  because  necessary  to  be 
done,  and  not  e  contrh.,)  but  likewise  its  sufficiency  as  to  the 
end  for  which  it  is  called  fundamental.  So  that  the  articles  of 
faith  called  fundamental  are  not  only  such  as  are  necessary  to 
be  believed,  but  if  they  be,  are  sufficient  for  salvation  to  all 
that  do  believe  them.  Now  he  that  adds  anything  to  be  be- 
lieved or  done  as  fundamental,  that  is  necessary  to  salvation, 
doth  thereby  destroy  the  sufficiency  of  those  former  articles  in 
order  to  salvation;  for  if  they  were  sufficient,  how  can  new 
ones  be  necessary.  The  case  will  be  clear  by  an  instance. 
Who  assert  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  for  sinners  to  be  a  funda- 
mental article,  and  thereby  do  imply  the  sufficiency  of  the 
belief  of  that  in  order  to  salvation;  now  if  a  pope  or  any 
other  command  me  to  believe  the  meritoriousness  of  good 


142  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

works  with  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  as  necessary  to  salva- 
tion, by  adding  this  he  destroys  the  former  as  a  fundamental 
article:  for  if  Christ's  satisfaction  be  sufficient,  how  can  good 
works  be  meritorious?  and  if  this  latter  be  necessary,  the  other 
was  not;  for  if  it  were,  what  need  this  be  added?  Which  is 
a  thing  the  papists  with  their  new  creed  of  Pius  the  fourth 
would  do  well  to  consider:  and  others  too,  who  so  confidently 
assert  that  none  of  their  errors  touch  the  foundation  of  faith. 
Where  there  is  now  such  corruption  in  doctrine  supposed  in 
a  church;  withdrawing  and  separation  from  such  a  church,  is 
as  necessary  as  the  avoiding  of  her  errors,  and  not  partaking 
of  her  sins  is.  Thence  we  read  in  ScriptiU'e,  of  rejecting  such 
as  are  heretics,  and  loithdrawing  from  their  society,  which 
will  as  well  hold  to  churches  as  to  persons,  and  so  much  the 
more,  as  the  corruption  is  more  dangerous,  and  the  relation 
nearer  of  a  member  to  a  church,  than  of  one  man  to  another: 
and  from  the  reason  of  that  command,  we  read  in  ecclesiasti- 
cal history,  that  when  Eulalius,  Euphronius,  and  Placen- 
tius  were  constituted  bishops  of  Antioch,  being  Arians,  many 
both  of  the  clergy  and  people,^  who  resolved  to  adhere  to  the 
true  faith,  withdrew  from  the  public  meetings,  and  had  pri- 
vate assemblies  of  their  own.  And  after,  when  Leontius  was 
made  bishop  oi  Antioch,  who  favoured  the  Arians,  Flavianus 
and  Diodorus^  not  only  publicly  reproved  him  for  deserting 
the  orthodox  faith,  but  withdrew  the  people  from  communion 
with  him,  and  undertook  the  charge  of  them  themselves.^  So 
when  Felix  was  made  bishop  of  Rome,  none  of  the  church 
of  Rome  would  enter  into  the  church  while  he  was  there. 
And  Vincentius  Lyrinensis^  tells  us  a  remarkable  story  of 
Photinus  bishop  of  Syrinium  in  Pannonia,  a  man  of  great 
abilities  and  fame,  who  suddenly  turned  from  the  true  faith, 
and  though  his  people  both  loved  and  admired  him,  yet  when 
they  discerned  his  errors,  "  whom  they  followed  before  as  the 
leader  of  the  flock,  they  then  ran  away  from  as  a  devouring 
wolf."^  This  is  the  first  thing  which  makes  separation,  and 
withdrawal  of  communion,  lawful  and  necessary,  viz.  corrup- 
tion of  doctrine.  The  second  is  corruption  of  practice:  I 
speak  not  of  practice,  as  relating  to  the  civil  conversation  of 
men,  but  as  it  takes  in  the  Agenda^  of  religion.    When  idola- 

1  Theodoret.  lib.  1,  c,  22.  2  Id.  |.  2,  cap.  24. 

3  Lib.  2,  c.  17,  Advers.  ^  *  Hceres.  cap.  16. 

5  Qiiem    antea  quasi    arietem    gregis   sequcbuntur,  cundein   deinccps  veluti 
lupum  fugerc  cccperuiit. 

6  Things  tiiat  ought  to  be  done. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  143 

trous  customs,  and  superstitious  practices  are  not  only  crept 
into  a  church,  but  are  the  prescribed  devotion  of  it:  such  as 
the  adoration  of  the  eucharist,  (chiefly  insisted  on  by  Mr. 
Daill^  in  his  apology,  as  a  cause  of  separation  from  the  church 
oi  Rome,)  invocation  of  saints  and  angels,  worshipping  images, 
and  others  of  a  like  nature,  used  among  the  papists,  which 
are  of  themselves  sufficient  to  make  our  separation  from  them 
necessary.  But  then  thirdly,  as  an  accession  to  these  two,  is 
the  public  owning  and  professing  them,  and  requiring  them, 
as  necessary  conditions  of  communion,  from  all  the  members 
of  their  church,  which  makes  our  withdrawing  from  them 
unavoidably  necessary,  as  long  as  we  judge  them  to  be  such 
corruptions  as  indeed  they  are.  For  men  not  to  forsake  the 
behef  of  errors,  supposing  them  to  be  such,  is  impossible:  and 
not  to  forsake  the  practice  and  profession  of  them  upon  such 
belief,  were  the  highest  hypocrisy:  and  to  do  so,  and  not  to 
forsake  the  communion  of  that  church  where  these  are  owned, 
is  apparently  contradictory,  (as  Mr.  Chillingioorth}  well  ob- 
serves,) seeing  the  condition  of  communion  with  it  is,  that  we 
must  profess  to  believe  all  the  doctrines  of  that  church,  not 
only  not  to  be  errors,  but  to  be  certain  and  necessary  truths: 
so  that  on  this  account,  to  believe  there  are  any  errors  in  the 
church  of  Rome  is  actually,  and  ipso  facto,  to  forsake  the 
communion  of  that  church;  because  the  condition  of  its  com- 
munion is  the  belief  that  there  are  none:  and  so  that  learned 
and  rational  author  there  fully  proves,  that  those  who  require 
unlawful  and  unnecessary  conditions  of  communion,  must 
take  the  imputation  of  schism  upon  themselves,  by  making 
separation  from  them  just  and  necessary.  In  this  case,  when 
corruptions  in  opinion  or  practice  are  thus  required,  as  condi- 
tions of  communion,  it  is  impossible  for  one  to  communicate 
with  such  a  church  without  sin;  both  materially,  as  the  things 
are  unlawful  which  he  joins  with  them  in;  and  formally,  as 
he  judgeth  them  so.     This  is  the  first  proposition. 

§  6.  The  second  is,  ivhere  a  church  retains  the  purity  of 
doctrine  in  its  public  profession,  hut  hath  a  mixture  of  some 
corruptions,  as  to  practice,  which  are  only  tolerated  and  not 
imposed,  it  is  not  lawful  to  loithdraiv  communion  from 
such  a  church,  much  less  to  run  into  total  separation  from 
it.  For  here  is  no  just  and  lawful  cause  given  of  withdraw- 
ing; here  is  no  owned  corruption  of  doctrine  or  practice,  nor 
any  thing  required  as  a  condition  of  communion,  but  what  is 

'  Answ.  lo  the  Pref,  p.  96,  s.  22. 


144  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

in  itself  necessary;  and  therefore  there  can  be  no  plea,  but 
only  pollution  from  such  a  communion,  which  cannot  be  to 
any  who  do  not  own  any  such  supposed  corruptions  in  the 
church.  Men  may  communicate  with  a  clun-ch,  and  not  com- 
municate with  the  abuses  of  a  church;  for  the  ground  of  his 
communicating  is,  its  being  a  church,  and  not  a  corrupt  or 
defective  church.  And  that  men  are  not  themselves  guilty, 
by  partaking  with  those  who  are  guilty  of  corruptions  in  a 
church,  might  be  easily  and  largely  proved,  both  from  the 
church  of  the  Jews  in  the  case  of  EWs  sons,  and  the  Christian 
churches  of  Asia,  and  Corinth,  where  we  read  of  many  cor- 
ruptions reproved,  yet  nothing  spoken  of  the  duty  of  the  mem- 
bers of  those  churches  to  separate  from  them,  which  would 
have  been,  had  it  been  a  sin  to  communicate  with  those 
churches  when  such  corruptions  were  in  them.  Besides,  what 
reason  is  there  that  one  man's  sins  should  defile  another,  more 
than  another's  graces  sanctify  another?  and  why  corruption 
in  another  should  defile  him  more  than  in  himself,  and  so  keep 
him  from  communicating  with  himself?  and  what  security 
any  one  can  have  in  the  most  refined  churches,  but  that  there 
is  some  scandalous,  or  at  least  unworthy  person  among  them? 
and  whetlier  then  it  is  not  his  duty  to  try  and  examine  all 
himself  particularly,  with  whom  he  communicates?  and  why 
his  presence  at  one  ordinance  should  defile  it  more  than  at 
another?  and  why  at  any  more  than  in  worldly  converse,  and 
so  turn  at  last  to  make  men  Anchorets^  as  it  hath  done  some? 
Many  other  reasons  might  be  produced  against  this,  which  I 
forbear,  it  being  fully  spoken  to  by  others.  And  so  I  come  to 
my  third  proposition,  which  is, 

Where  any  church,  retaining  the  purity  of  doctrine,  doth 
require  the  owning  of,  and  conforming  to,  any  lawful  or 
suspected  practice,  men  may  laivfully  deny  conformity  to, 
and  communion  with  that  church  in  such  things,  loithout 
incurring  the  guilt  of  schism.  I  say  not,  men  may  proceed 
to  positive  schism  as  it  is  called,  that  is,  erecting  of  new 
churches,  which  from  Cyprian  is  called  erigere  altare  contra 
altare,  "to  erect  an  altar  against  an  altar;"  but  only  that 
withdrawing  communion  from  a  church  in  unlawful  or  sus- 
pected things,  doth  not  lay  men  under  the  guilt  of  schism: 
which,  because  I  know  it  may  meet  with  some  opposition 
from  those  men,  who  will  sooner  call  men  schismatics  than 
prove  them  so,  I  shall  offer  this  reason  of  it  to  consideration. 

'  See  Mr.  Durham's  Tract  of  Scandal,  part  2,  chap.  12. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  145 

If  our  separation  from  the  church  of  Rome  was  therefore 
lawful,  because  she  required  unlawful  things,  as  conditions  of 
her  communion;  then  wherever  such  things  are  required  by 
any  church,  non-communion  with  that  church  in  those  things 
will  be  lawful  too;  and  where  non-communion  is  lawful,  there 
can  be  no  schism  in  it.     Whatever  difference  will  be  thought 
of,  as  to  the  things  imposed  by  the  church  of  Rome  and 
others,  will  be  soon  answered  by  the  proportionable  difference 
between  bare  non-conformity,  and  total  and  positive  separa- 
tion.    What  was  in  itself  lawful  and  necessary  then,  how 
comes  it  to  be  unlawful  and  unnecessary  now?  Did  that  justify 
our  withdrawing  from  them,  because  they  required  things 
unlawful,  as  conditions  of  communion;  and  will  not  the  same 
justify  other  men's  non-conformity,  in  things  supposed  by  them 
unlawful?     If  it  be  said  here,  that  the  pope's  power  was  an 
usurpation,  which  is  not  in  lawful  governors  of  churches;  it  is 
soon  replied,  that  the  pope's  usurpation  mainly  lies  in  impos- 
ing things  upon  men's  consciences  as  necessary,  which  are 
doubtful  or  unlawful;  and  wherever  the  same  thing  is  done, 
there  is  an  usurpation  of  the  same  nature,  though  not  in  so 
high  a  degree;  and  it  may  be  as  lawful  to  withdraw  commu- 
nion from  one  as  well  as  the  other.     If  it  be  said,  that  men 
are  bound  to  be  ruled  by  their  governors,  in  determining  what 
things  are  lawful,  and  what  not?   To  this  it  is  answered:  first, 
no  true  protestant  can  swear  blind  obedience  to  church  gover- 
nors in  all  things.     It  is  the  highest  usurpation  to  rob  men  of 
the  liberty  of  their  judgments.     That  which  we  plead  for 
against  the  papists,  is,  that  all  men  have  eyes  in  their  heads 
as  well  as  the  pope,  that  every  one  hath  a.  judicium  privaiae 
discretionis,  "a  judgment  of  private  discretion,"  which  is  the 
rule  of  practice,  as  to  himself;  and  though  we  freely  allow  a 
ministerial  power,  under  Christ,  in  the  government  of  the 
church,  yet  that  extends  not  to  an  obligation  upon  men,  to  go 
against  the  dictates  of  their  own  reason  and  conscience.    Their 
power  is  only  directive  and  declarative,  and  in  matters  of 
duty  can  bind  no  more  than  reason  and  evidence  brought 
from  Scripture  by  them  doth.     A  man  hath  not  the  power 
over  his  own  understanding,  much  less  can  others  have  it. 
"  No  one  believes  anything  to  be  true,  because  he  desires  to 
believe  <it  is  true;  for  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  man  to  cause 
anything  to  appear  to  his  understanding  to  be  true,  whenever 
he  will."^     Either  therefore  men  are  bound  to  obey  church 

'  Niillus  credit  aliquid  esse  verum,  quia  vult  credere  id  esse  verum;  non  est 
19 


146  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

governors  in  all  things  absolutely,  without  any  restriction  or 
limitation;  (which,  if  it  be  not  usurpation  and  dominion  over 
others'  faith  in  them,  and  the  worst  of  implicit  faith  in  others, 
it  is  hard  to  define  what  either  of  them  is,)  or  else  if  they  be 
bound  to  obey  only  in  lawful  things;  I  then  inquire  who  must 
be  judge  of  what  things  are  lawful  in  this  case,  what  not?  if 
the  governors  still,  then  the  power  will  be  absolute  again;  for 
to  be  sure,  whatever  they  command,  they  will  say  is  lawful, 
either  in  itself,  or  as  they  command  it:  if  every  private  person 
must  judge  what  is  lawful,  and  what  is  not,  which  is  com- 
manded, (as  when  all  is  said,  every  man  will  be  his  own 
judge  in  this  case,  in  things  concerning  his  own  welfare,)  then 
he  is  no  further  bound  to  obey  than  he  judgeth  the  thing  to  be 
lawful,  which  is  commanded.  The  plea  of  an  erroneous  con- 
science, takes  not  off  the  obligation  to  follow  the  dictates  of 
it;  for  as  he  is  bound  to  lay  it  down,  supposing  it  erroneous, 
so  he  is  bound  not  to  go  against  it,  while  it  is  not  laid  down. 
But  then  again,  if  men  are  bound  to  submit  to  governors  in 
the  determination  of  lawful  things,  what  plea  could  our  re- 
formers have  to  withdraw  themselves  from  the  pope's  yoke; 
it  might  have  still  held  true,  boves  arabcmt  et  asinse  pasce- 
hantur  simul,^  "  the  oxen  were  ploughing,  and  the  asses 
were  feeding  together,"  which  is  JJquinas^s  argument  for  the 
submission  of  inferiors  in  the  church  to  their  superiors;  for 
did  not  the  pope  plead  to  be  a  lawful  governor,  and  if  men  are 
bound  to  submit  to  the  determination  of  church  governors,  as 
to  the  lawfulness  of  things,  they  were  bound  to  believe  him 
in  that  as  well  as  other  things,  and  so  separation  from  that 
church  was  unlawful  then.  So  that  let  men  turn  and  wind 
themselves  which  way  they  will,  by  the  very  same  arguments 
that  any  will  prove  separation  from  the  church  of  Rome  law- 
ful, because  she  required  unlawful  things,  as  conditions  of  her 
communion,  it  will  be  proved  lawful,  not  to  conform  to  any 
suspected  or  unlawful  practice,  required  by  any  church  gover- 
nors upon  the  same  terms;  if  the  thing  so  required,  be,  after 
serious  and  sober  inquiry,  judged  unwarrantable  by  a  man's 
own  conscience.  And  withal  it  would  be  further  considered, 
whether  when  our  best  writers  against  the  papists,  do  lay  the 
imputation  of  schism,  not  on  those  who  withdraw  communion, 
but  on  them  for  requiring  such  conditions  of  communion, 


enim  in  potestate  hominis  facere  aliqnid  apparere  intellectui  suo  verum  quando 
voluerit.— Picus,  Mirand.  Apoll.  p.  225,  22G. 
I  Job  i.  14.    Summ.  ii.  2,  q.  2,  art.  6. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  ^147 

(whereby  they  did  rather  eject  men  out  of  their  communion, 
than  the  others  separate  from  them,)  they  do  not  by  the  same 
arguments,  lay  the  imputation  of  schism  on  all  who  require 
such  conditions  of  communion,  and  take  it  wholly  off  from 
those  who  refuse  to  conform  for  conscience'  sake.  To  this  I 
shall  subjoin  the  judgment  of  as  learned  and  judicious  a  divine, 
as  most  our  nation  has  bred,  in  his  excellent  (though  little) 
tract  concerning  schism.^  "In  those  schisms,"  saith  he, 
"  which  concern  fact,  nothing  can  be  a  just  cause  of  refusing 
communion,  but  only  to  require  the  execution  of  some  unlaw- 
ful or  suspected  act;  for  not  only  in  reason,  but  in  religion 
too,  that  maxim  admits  of  no  release,  Cautissimi  cxijusque 
2)rxceptum;  quod  dubitas,  nlfeceris,  'the  rule  of  every  most 
cautious  character  is,  not  to  do,  what  you  doubt  is  right.' 
And  after  instanceth  in  the  schism  about  image-worship,  de- 
termined by  the  second  council  of  Nice,  in  which  he  pro- 
nounceth  the  schismatical  party  to  be  the  synod  itself,  and  that 
on  these  grounds:  First,  because  it  is  acknowledged  by  all, 
that  it  is  a  thing  unnecessary.  Secondly,  it  is  by  most  sus- 
pected. Thirdly,  it  is  by  many  held  utterly  unlawful.  Can 
then,  (saith  he,)  the  enjoining  of  such  a  thing  be  ought  else  but 
abuse?  Or  can  the  refusal  of  communion  here,  be  thought 
any  other  thing  than  duty?  Here,  or  upon  the  like  occasion, 
to  separate,  may  peradventure  bring  personal  trouble  or 
danger,  (against  which  it  concerns  every  honest  man  to  have 
pectus prseparatum,  'a  mind  prepared;')  further  harm  it  can- 
not do,  so  that  in  these  cases  you  cannot  be  to  seek  what  to 
think,  or  what  you  have  to  do.  And  afterwards  propounds 
it  as  a  remedy  to  prevent  schism,  to  have  all  liturgies  and 
public  forms  of  service  so  framed,  so  that  they  admit  not  of 
particular  and  private  fancies,  but  contain  only  such  things, 
in  which  all  Christians  do  agree.  For,  (saith  he,)  consider  of 
all  the  liturgies  that  are,  and  ever  have  been,  and  remove  from 
them  whatever  is  scandalous  to  any  party,  and  leave  nothing 
but  what  all  agree  on;  and  the  consequence  shall  be,  that  the 
public  service  and  honour  of  God  shall  no  ways  suffer:  where- 
as, to  load  our  public  forms,  with  the  private  fancies  upon 
which  we  differ,  is  the  most  sovereign  way  to  perpetuate 
schism  unto  the  world's  end.  Prayer,  confession,  thanksgiv- 
ing, reading  of  Scriptures  in  the  plainest  and  simplest  manner, 
were  matter  enough  to  furnish  out  a  sufficient  liturgy,  though 
nothing  either  of  private  opinions,  or  of  church  pomp,  of  gar- 

«  Mr.  Hale's  Tract  of  Schism,  p.  8. 


148  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

ments,  or  prescribed  gestures,  of  imagery,  of  music,  of  matter 
concerning  the  dead,  of  many  superfluities,  which  creep  into 
the  church,  under  the  name  of  order  and  decency,  did  inter- 
pose itself.  To  charge  churches  and  liturgies  with  things  un- 
necessary, was  the  first  beginning  of  all  superstition;  and  when 
scruple  of  conscience  began  to  be  made  or  pretended,  then 
schism  began  to  break  in;  if  the  special  guides  and  fathers  of 
the  church  would  be  a  little  sparing  of  encumbering  churches 
with  superfluities,  or  not  over  rigid,  either  in  reviving  obsolete 
customs,  or  imposing  new,  there  would  be  far  less  cause  of 
schism  or  superstition;  and  all  the  inconvenience  likely  to 
ensue,  would  be  but  this,  they  should  in  so  doing  yield  a  little 
to  the  imbecility  of  their  inferiors,  a  thing  which  Saint  Paul 
would  never  have  refused  to  do;  meanwhile,  wheresoever 
false  or  suspected  opinions  are  made  a  piece  of  church  liturgy, 
he  that  separates  is  not  the  schismatic;  for  it  is  alike  unlawful, 
to  make  profession  of  known  or  suspected  falsehood,  as  to  put 
in  practice  unlawful  or  suspected  actions." 

Thus  far  that  excellent  person,  whose  words  I  have  taken 
the  pains  to  transcribe,  because  of  that  great  wisdom,  judg- 
ment, and  moderation,  contained  in  them,  and  the  seasonable- 
ness  of  his  counsel  and  advice,  to  the  present  posture  of  affairs 
among  us.  Were  we  so  happy  but  to  take  off  things  granted 
unnecessary  by  all,  and  suspected  by  many,  and  judged  un- 
lawful by  some;  and  to  make  nothing  the  bonds  of  our  com- 
munion but  what  Christ  hath  done,  viz.  one  faith,  one  baptism, 
&c. — allowing  a  liberty  for  matters  of  indifferency,  and  bear- 
ing with  the  weakness  of  those  who  cannot  bear  things  which 
others  account  lawful;  we  might  indeed  be  restored  to  a  true 
primitive  lustre  far  sooner,  than  by  furbishing  up  some  anti- 
quated ceremonies,  which  can  derive  their  pedigree  no  higher, 
than  from  some  ancient  custom  and  tradition.  God  will  one 
day  convince  men,  that  the  union  of  the  church  lies  more  in 
the  unity  of  faith  and  affection,  than  in  uniformity  of  doubtful 
rites  and  ceremonies.  The  bond  of  church  communion  should 
be  something  common  to  strong  and  weak  Christians,  as  St. 
Austin  saith  of  the  rule  of  faith,  that  it  is  pusillis  magnisq, 
communis;^  "common  to  both  weak  and  strong;"  and  cer- 
tainly the  primitive  church,  that  did  not  charge  men's  faith 
with  such  a  load  of  articles,  as  now  in  these  latter  ages  men 
are  charged  with,  would  much  less  burden  men  with  im- 
posing doubtful  practices  upon  them,  as  the  ground  of  church 

J  Ep.  57, 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  149 

communion.  And  for  public  forms  of  divine  service,  such 
of  all  things  certainly  should  be  so  composed,  as  to  be  the 
least  subject  to  any  scruple  from  any  persons  whatsoever; 
being  on  purpose  composed  for  the  declaring  men's  unity 
and  consent  in  their  public  worship:  and  those  who  are  the 
most  addicted  to  any  one  form,  can  never  plead  it  unlawful 
to  amend  it;  whereas  others  may,  that  it  is  not  lawful  or  con- 
venient at  least,  to  use  it  without  such  alterations.  And 
therefore,  were  there  that  spirit  of  mutual  condescension, 
which  was  most  certainly  in  Eccelesid  primo-primitivd,  as 
Gratian  somewhere  speaks,  '<  in  the  first  and  truly  primitive 
church"  in  the  apostles'  time;  our  breaches  as  to  this  thing  too, 
might  soon  be  closed  up,  and  the  voice  of  schism  be  heard 
among  us  no  more.  It  argued  very  much  the  prudence  and 
temper  of  the  French  churches,  in  composing  their  public 
forms  of  prayer,  that  they  were  so  far  from  inserting  anything 
controversial  into  them,  that  Amyraldtis  tells  us,  the  papists 
themselves  would  use  them.  "  And  that  which  men  would 
scarce  believe  unless  they  saw  it,  they  inserted  them  into  their 
own  prayer-books,  in  which  they  had  crowded  various  forms 
of  prayer."^  The  same  temper  was  used  by  our  reformers  in 
composing  our  liturgy,  in  reference  to  the  papists,  to  whom 
they  had  then  an  especial  eye,  as  being  the  only  party  then 
appearing,  whom  they  desired  to  draw  into  their  communion, 
by  coming  as  near  them  as  they  well  and  safely  could:  and 
certainly  those  holy  men,  who  did  seek  by  any  means  to  draw 
in  others,  at  such  a  distance  from  their  principles  as  the  papists 
were,  did  never  intend  by  what  they  did  for  that  end,  to  ex- 
clude any  truly  tender  consciences  from  their  communion. 
That  which  they  laid  as  a  bait  for  them,  was  never  intended 
by  them  as  a  hook  from  those  of  their  own  profession.  But 
the  same  or  greater  reason  which  made  them  seek  so  much  at 
that  time  (before  the  rent  between  the  papists  and  us  was 
grown  to  that  height  it  is  now  at;  they  being  then  in  hopes  by 
a  fair  compliance  to  have  brought  the  whole  kingdom  to  join 
with  them);  I  say  the  same  reason  which  at  that  time  made 
them  yield  so  far  to  them  then,  would  now  have  persuaded 
them  to  alter  and  lay  aside  those  things  which  yield  matter  of 
offence,  to  any  of  the  same  profession  with  themselves  now. 
For  surely  none  will  be  so  uncharitable  toward  those  of  his 


'  Etquod  vix  credlbile  esset  nisi  publice  viseretur,  eas  inseruerunt  in  eos  libros 
in  quos  congesserunt  varias  precationum  formulas. — De  secess.  ab  Eccl.  Rom.  et 
pace  inter  Evang.  const,  p.  225. 


150  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

own  profession,,  as  not  to  think  there  is  as  much  reason  to 
yield  in  compliance  with  them,  as  with  the  papists.  And  it 
cannot  but  be  looked  upon  as  a  token  of  God^s  severe  dis- 
pleasure against  us,  if  any,  though  unreasonable  proposals  of 
peace  between  us  and  the  papists  should  meet  with  such 
entertainment  among  many,  and  yet  any  fair  offers  of  union 
and  accommodation  among  ourselves,  be  so  coldly  embraced 
and  entertained. 

§  7.  Having  thus  far  shown  how  far  the  obligation  to  keep 
in  a  church  society  doth  reach  to  the  several  members  of  it,  I 
now  proceed  to  show  what  way  the  light  of  nature  directs 
men  to,  for  the  quieting  and  composing  any  differences  which 
may  arise  in  such  a  society  tending  to  break  the  peace  of  it. 
But  before  I  come  to  the  particular  ways  directed  to  by  the 
law  of  nature  for  ending  controversies  in  the  church,  I  shall 
lay  down  some  things  by  way  of  caution,  for  the  right 
understanding  of  what  is  already  spoken,  lest  I  should  be 
thought,  instead  of  pleading  for  peace,  to  leave  a  door  open 
for  an  universal  liberty,  and  so  pave  a  new  causeway  towards 
Babel.  First,  That  though  it  be  lawful  not  to  conform  to 
unlawful  or  suspected  practices  in  a  church,  yet  it  is  not  there- 
fore lawful  to  erect  new  churches.  For  all  other  essentials 
supposed  in  a  church,  a  mere  requiring  conformity  in  some 
suspected  rites,  doth  not  make  it  to  be  no  true  or  sound 
church,  as  to  other  things,  from  which  it  is  lawful  to  make  a 
total  divorce  and  separation.  A  total  separation  is,  when  a 
new  and  distinct  society  for  worship  is  entered  into,  under 
distinct  and  peculiar  officers  governing  by  laws  and  church 
rules  different  from  that  form  which  they  separate  from. 
This  I  do  not  assert  to  be  therefore  lawful,  because  some 
things  are  required,  which  men's  consciences  are  unsatisfied 
in:  unless  others  proceed  to  eject  and  cast  them  wholly  out  of 
communion  on  that  account,  in  which  case  their  separation  is 
necessary,  and  their  schism  unavoidable.  Secondly,  therefore 
I  assert,  that  as  to  things  in  the  judgment  of  the  primitive  and 
reformed  churches  left  undetermined  by  the  law  of  God, 
and  in  matters  of  mere  order  and  decency,  and  wholly  as  to 
the  form  of  government,  every  one  notwithstanding  what  his 
private  judgment  may  be  of  them,  is  bound  for  the  peace  of 
the  church  of  God  to  submit  to  the  determination  of  the  law- 
ful governors  of  the  church.  And  this  is  that  power  of  ending 
controversies,  which  I  suppose  to  be  lodged  in  a  church 
society;  not  such  a  one  as  whereto  every  man  is  bound  to 
conform  his  private  judgment;  but  whereto  every  private  per- 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  151 

son  is  bound  to  submit  in  order  to  the  church's  peace.  That 
is,  in  any  controversies  arising  in  a  church,  there  is  such  a 
power  supposed,  that  may  give  such  an  authoritative  decision 
of  the  controversy  in  which  both  parties  are  bound  to  acqui- 
esce, so  as  to  act  nothing  contrary  to  that  decision.  For  as  it 
is  supposed  that  in  all  contracts  and  agreements  for  mutual 
society,  men  are  content  to  part  with  their  own  hberties  for 
the  good  of  the  whole:  so  likewise  to  part  with  the  authority 
of  their  own  judgments,  and  to  submit  to  the  determination 
of  things  by  the  rulers  of  the  society  constituted  by  them. 
For  there  must  be  a  difference  made  between  the  liberty  and 
freedom  of  a  man's  own  judgment,  and  the  authority  of  it: 
for  supposing  men  out  of  all  society,  every  man  hath  both; 
but  societies  being  entered,  and  contracts  made,  though  men 
can  never  part  with  the  freedom  of  their  judgments,  (men  not 
having  a  despotical poiver  over  their  own  understandings,) 
yet  they  must  part  with  the  authority  of  their  judgments;  i.  e. 
in  matters  concerning  the  government  of  the  society,  they 
must  be  ruled  by  persons  in  authority  over  them.  Else  there 
can  be  nothing  imagined  but  confusion  and  disorder,  instead 
of  peace  and  unity  in  every  civil  state  and  society.  The  case 
is  the  same  in  a  religious  society  too,  in  which  men  must  be 
supposed  to  part  with  the  authority  of  their  own  judgments 
in  matters  concerning  the  government  of  the  church,  and  to 
submit  to  what  is  constituted  and  appointed  by  those  who  are 
entrusted  with  the  care  and  welfare  of  it.  Else  it  is  impossi- 
ble there  should  be  unity  and  peace  in  a  church  considered  as 
a  society;  which  is  as  much  as  to  say,  there  neither  is,  nor  can 
be  such  a  society;  and  that  God  hath  commanded  that  which 
is  naturally  impossible;  I  mean,  freedom  from  divisions,  and 
the  unity  and  peace  of  his  church.  Which  will  appear  from 
hence,  because  it  can  never  be  expected  that  all  men  should 
be  exactly  of  one  mind.  Either  then  men  retaining  their 
private  apprehensions,  are  bound  to  acquiesce  in  what  is 
publicly  determined,  or  there  is  a  necessity  of  perpetual  con- 
fusions in  the  church  of  God.  For  the  main  inlet  of  all  dis- 
turbances and  divisions  in  the  church,  is  from  hence  that  men 
consider  themselves  absolutely,  and  not  as .  members  of  a 
governed  society,  and  so  that  they  may  follow  their  own  pri- 
vate judgments,  and  are  bound  so  to  do  in  matters  belonging 
to  the  government  of  the  church,  and  not  to  acquiesce  for  the 
church's  peace  in  what  is  established  in  order  to  the  ruling  of 
this  so  constituted  society,  by  lawful  authority. 
These  things  premised,  the  way  is  now  fully  cleared  for  the 


152  THE  DIVINE  RIGflT  OF 

discovering  what  ways  are  prescribed  by  the  hght  of  nature 
for  ending  controversies  in  the  church;  which  will  appear  to 
be  these  two. 

1.  In  societies  wherein  persons  act  toith  an  equality  of 
power,  for  the  ending  differences  arising,  the  less  number 
must  always  acquiesce  in  the  determination  of  the  greater. 
And  therefore  it  is  a  generally  received  axiom,  that  in  all 
societies  pars  major  jus  hahet  universitatis,  '^  the  greater 
part  hath  the  power  of  the  whole,"  And  it  is  a  standing  rule 
in  the  civil  law,  Refertur  ad  universos  quod publice  sit  per 
m,ajorem  jjartem,  "  What  is  in  a  public  concern,  done  by  the 
majority,  is  enacted  for  the  whole,"  which  is  determined  by 
the  lawyers  to  hold,  not  of  the  persons  in  power,  but  of  the 
persons  present  at  the  determination;  as  when  Alexander 
Severus  made  fourteen  of  the  viri  consulares,  "consular 
men,"  to  be  curatores  urbis,  "bailiffs,"  joined  with  i\\(?,  jjrse- 
fectis  urbis,^  "governors  of  the  city,"  to  determine  cases 
brought  before  them,  what  was  determined  by  the  greater 
part  of  those  present,  was  looked  upon  as  binding,  as  if  the 
whole  number  had  been  there.  And  this  Aristotle  lays  down 
as  one  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  a  democratical  govern- 
ment, "That  must  be  looked  on  as  a  just  and  final  decision, 
which  the  major  part  determines."^  And  therefore  rationally 
infers,  that  in  a  democracy  the  poorer  sort,  (and  so  likewise 
the  worse,)  must  always  bear  the  greatest  sway,  because  they 
are  the  most.  Which  is  an  unavoidable  inconvenience  in  that 
form  of  government,  whether  in  church  or  state.  The  same 
he  elsewhere  applies  to  other  forms  of  government  which 
have  a  multitude  of  rulers,  as  aristocracy  and  oligarchy. 
That  which  seems  good  to  the  most  obtains  as  a  law  amongst 
all,  which  Jippian^  thus  briefly  expresses,  to  Ttxeiov  8ixaiotspov, 
"the  majority  the  more  just,"  and  Bionys.  Halicarnassus, 
o  tL  a.v  So^Tj  rots  TtxsioGi,,  tovto  vixav,  "  what  scems  right  to  the  ma- 
jority prevails,"  the  one  speaking  of  matter  of  fact,  that  it 
doth  obtain,  the  other  of  matter  of  law  that  it  should  do  so. 
It  appears  then  from  the  law  and  light  of  nature,  that  where- 
ever  any  multitude  acts  in  an  equality  of  power,  the  greater 
part  have  the  power  of  the  whole;  not  from  any  right  which 
the  major  part  hath  as  superior  over  the  less;  but  from  the 

1  C.  dc  decurion.  lib.  10,  1.  nomin  ulonem  Pet.  Fabri.  Comment,  ad  tit.  de 
divcrsis  Reg.  Juris  Laiiipridius  in  Alex.  Scvero. 

2  "o  Ti  av  Jo^)i  TOif  TrXEiotri,  Tovro  sivai  to  rtXoj  nat  touto  to  Jotoiov. — Politic.  1.  6, 
cap.  2. 

3  V.  Grotius  de  jure  bel.  &c.  lib.  2,  cap.  5,  sect.  17. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  153 

law  of  nature,  which  will  have  every  part  ordered  for  the 
good  of  the  whole;  which  good  cannot  oftimes  be  obtained  with- 
out a  special  determination  on  one  side  or  the  other;  nor  can 
that  determination  have  its  effect,  if  the  act  of  the  major  part 
may  be  rescinded  by  the  less.  So  that  in  every  thing  requir- 
ing special  determination,  this  is  to  be  esteemed  the  most  just 
and  final  decision  which  is  done  by  the  major  part.  For  it 
would  be  manifestly  unjust  for  the  less  part  to  determine  the 
greater,  and  therefore  by  the  law  of  nature,  the  greater  part 
hath  the  right  of  the  whole. 

2,  In  a  society  consisting  of  many  particular  companies 
or  congregations,  there  must  be  a  subordination  of  powers 
by  the  law  of  nature,  lohich  grants  a  right  of  appeal  to  an 
injured  person  from  the  lower  and  subordinate  power  to  the 
higher  and  superior.  Appealing  is  defined  by  the  lawyers 
to  be  Provocatio  iniqux  sentential  querelam  continens. 
"An  address  with  complaint  of  wrong:"i  and  so  in  general  it 
is  defined  by  Ulpian  to  be  ab  inferioris  judicis  sententid  ad 
superiorem  provocatio:  "  an  appeal  from  the  sentence  of  an 
inferior  to  a  superior  judge;"  but  as  Hotloman  observes, 
appeals  may  sometimes  be  made  to  a  co-ordinate  power  upon 
complaint  of  injustice  done.  As  one  praetor,  consul,  tribune 
might  be  appealed  to,  from  the  sentence  of  another.  The  origi- 
nal of  appeals  then  is,  that  injuries  may  be  redressed,  and  in 
order  to  that,  nature  dictates  that  there  ought  to  be  a  subordi- 
nation of  powers  one  to  another,  lest  any  injury  done  through 
corruption  or  ignorance  of  the  immediate  judges,  prove  irreme- 
diable. To  which  purpose  our  learned  Whitaker  saith,  that  ap- 
peals are  "of  divine  and  natural  right,  on  account  of  either  the 
want  of  skill  or  equity  in  many  judges,  and  in  every  commu- 
nity indispensable:  otherwise  the  cause  of  an  innocent  charac- 
ter may  be  ruined,  if  it  be  not  lawful  to  appeal  from  an  unjust 
decision. "2  So  that  appeals  are  founded  upon  natural  right, 
lest  men  should  be  injured  in  any  determination  of  a  case  by 
those  that  have  the  cognizance  of  it.  And  in  order  to  a  re- 
dress of  wrongs,  and  ending  controversies,  nature  tells  us  that 
appeals  must  not  be  infinite,  but  there  must  be  some  power, 
from  whence  appeals  must  not  be  made:  what  that  should  be, 
must  be  determined  in  the  same  manner  that  it  is  in  civils; 

'  V.  Jac.  Omphalium  de  usurp.  Leg.  I.  7,  c.  3.  UIp.  1. 1.  D.  de  Appel.  Hottom. 
com.  V.  Juris. 

2  Juris  divini  et  naturalis,  et  in  omni  societate  admodum  necessariae;  propter 
muitorum  judicum  vel  iniquitatem,  vel  ignoranliam;  alioqui  actum  esset  de  inno- 
cente,  si  non  liceret  ab  iniqua  sententia  appeliare. — Controv.  4,  q.  ].  4,  c.  2. 
20 


154  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

not  that  every  controversy  in  the  church  be  determined  by  an 
oecumenical  council,  but  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  supreme 
magistrate,  as  supreme  head  in  causes  ecclesiastical,  to  limit 
and  fix  this  subordination,  and  determine  how  far  it  shall  go, 
and  no  further.  The  determination  being  in  order  to  the 
peace  of  the  church,  which  Christian  magistrates  are  bound 
to  look  after,  and  see  that  causes  hang  not  perpetually  without 
decision:  and  so  we  find  the  Christian  emperors  constituting 
to  whom  appeals  should  be  made,  and  where  they  should  be 
fixed,  as  Justinian  and  Theodosiiis  did.^  For  when  the 
church  is  incorporated  into  the  commonwealth,  the  chief  au- 
thority in  a  commonwealth  as  Christian,  belongs  to  the  same 
to  which  it  doth  as  a  commonwealth:  but  of  that  already.  It 
is  then  against  the  law  and  light  of  nature,  and  the  natural 
right  of  every  man,  for  any  particular  company  of  men,  call- 
ing themselves  a  church,  to  engross  all  ecclesiastical  power  so 
into  their  hands,  that  no  liberty  of  appeals  for  redress  can  be 
made  from  it.  Which,  (to  speak  within  compass,)  is  a  very 
high  usurpation  made  upon  the  civil  and  religious  rights  of 
Christians;  because  it  leaves  men  under  a  causeless  censure, 
without  any  authoritative  vindication  of  them  from  it.  As  for 
that  way  of  elective  synods,  substituted  in  the  place  of  au- 
thoritative power  to  determine  controversies,  it  is  a  ao^ov 
^a^i^axov,  "  an  artful  antidote,"  which  will  never  be  sovereign 
enough  to  cure  the  distemper  it  is  brought  for:  for  elective 
synods  are  but  like  that  which  the  lawyers  call  arbitrium 
boni  viri,  "  the  arbitration  of  an  honest  man;"  which  they 
distinguish  from  arbitrium  ex  compromisso,  "  an  arbitration 
from  compromise,"^  and  binds  no  further  than  the  party  con- 
cerned doth  judge  the  sentence  equal  and  just.  So  that  this 
helps  us  with  no  way  to  end  controversies  in  the  church,  any 
further  than  the  persons  engaged  are  willing  to  account  that 
just  which  shall  be  judged  in  their  case.  Taking  then  a 
coercive  power,  only  for  such  a  one  as  may  authoritatively 
decide  a  controversy,  we  see  what  great  reason  there  is  for 
what  the  historian  observes:  "  Those  who  cannot  restrain  the 
parent-power,  ought  to  take  their  stand  between  the  awards:'^* 
that  all  power  of  arbitration  should  have  some  judicial  power 
going  along  with  it,  to  make  a  final  end  of  quarrels.  But  that 
which  seems  yet  more  strange  to  me,  is  this,  that  by  those 

'  Just.  aulh.  diss.  epis.  collat.  9.    Thcod.  cod.  de  S.  S.  Eccl.  c.  omni. 

2  Grot,  de  jure  belli  ac  pacis,  1.  3,  cap.  20,  sect.  46. 

3  Arbilriis  ii  se  dcbent  interponere,  qui  non  parentem  cocrcere  possunt. — Vel- 
lei.  Patera,  hist.  lib.  2. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  155 

who  assert  the  independency  of  particular  congregations,  it 
is  so  hotly  pleaded,  that  Christ  hath  given  every  particular 
congregation  a  power  over  its  own  members,  to  determine 
controversies  arising  between  them:  but,  that  if  one,  or  many 
of  these  particular  congregations  should  err,  or  break  the  rule, 
he  hath  left  no  power  authoritatively  to  decide  what  should 
be  done  in  such  cases.  Can  we  conceive  that  Christ  should 
provide  more  for  the  cases  of  particular  persons,  than  of  par- 
ticular churches?  and  that  he  should  give  authority  for  deter- 
mining one,  and  not  the  other?  Is  there  any  more  coactive 
power  given  by  any  to  synods,  or  greater  officers,  than  there 
is  by  them  to  particular  churches?  which  power  is  only  de- 
clarative as  to  the  rule,  though  authoritative  as  to  persons 
wherever  it  is  lodged.  Is  there  not  more  danger  to  God's 
people,  by  the  scandals  of  churches,  than  persons?  Or  did 
Christ's  power  of  governing  his  people  reach  to  them  only  as 
particular  congregations?  Doth  not  this  too  strongly  savour 
of  the  Pai's  Donatio  "the  party  of  Donatus;"  only  the  Meri- 
dies^  must  be  rendered  a  particular  congregational  church, 
where  Christ  causeth  his  flock  to  rest  at  lioon?^  But  suppos- 
ing the  scripture  not  expressly  to  lay  down  a  rule  for  govern- 
ing many  churches,  are  men  outlawed  of  their  natural  rights? 
that  supposing  a  wrong  sentence  passed  in  the  congregation, 
there  is  no  hope,  way  or  means  to  redress  his  injury,  and 
make  his  innocency  known?  Doth  this  look  like  an  institu- 
tion of  Christ?  But  that  which  I  conceive  is  the  ■a^i^tov  4'su6o5; 
and  " the  original"  of  this  "mistake,"  is,  that  the  churches 
we  read  of  first  planted  in  scripture,  were  only  particular 
congregations;  and  therefore  there  is  no  proper  church  power 
beyond  them  or  above  them.  I  meddle  not  with  the  ante- 
cedent now,  which  is  largely  discussed  by  others,  but  the 
extreme  weakness  of  the  consequence,  is  that  I  am  here 
obliged  to  discover.  For  what  a  strange  shortness  of  discourse 
is  it  to  argue  thus;  if  when  there  was  but  one  congregation, 
that  congregation  had  all  power  within  itself;  then  when  there 
are  more  particular  congregations,  it  must  be  so;  and  yet  this 
is  the  very  foundation  of  all  those  kingdoms  of  Yvetot,  as  one 
calls  them,  those  sole  self-governing  congregations.  When 
there  was  but  one  congregation  in  a  church,  it  was  necessary 
if  it  had  any  church  power,  that  it  must  be  lodged  in  that  one 
congregation:  but  when  this  congregation  was  multiplied  into 

•  Literally,  the  south  or  noon  tide. 
2  See  Song  Sol.  i,  7. 


156'  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

many  more,  is  it  not  as  necessary  for  their  mutual  govern- 
ment, there  should  be  a  common  power  governing  them  to- 
gether, as  a  joint  society?  Besides,  the  first  congregational 
church  in  the  New  Testament,  viz.  that  of  Jerusalem,  could 
be  no  particular  organical  church,  for  it  had  many,  if  not 
all,  universal  officers  in  it;  and  if  they  were  the  fixed  pas- 
tors of  that  church,  they  could  not,  according  to  the  principles 
of  those  who  thus  speak,  preach  to  any  other  congregation 
but  their  own,  by  virtue  of  their  office:  and  so,  either  their 
apostolical  office  and  commission  must  be  destroyed,  if  they 
were  pastors  of  particular  organical  churches;  or  if  their  apos- 
tolical office  be  asserted,  their  pastorship  of  particular  organ- 
ical churches  is  destroyed  by  their  own  principles,  who  assert, 
that  the  pastor  of  a  church  can  do  no  pastoral  office  out  of  his 
own  congregation.  The  case  is  the  same,  as  to  other  churches 
planted  by  the  apostles,  and  governed  by  themselves;  which 
two,  as  far  as  I  can  find  in  the  New  Testament,  were  of  an 
equal  extent;  viz.  That  all  the  churches  planted  by  apostles, 
were  chiefly  governed  by  themselves,  though  they  had  sub- 
ordinate officers  under  them.  These  first  churches  then  were 
not  such  particular  organized  churches,  but  they  were  as  the 
first  vnatter  of  many  congregations  to  be  propagated  out  of 
them;  which  afterwards  made  one  society,  consisting  of  those 
several  congregations  embodied  together,  and  ruled  by  one 
common  government.  As  in  a  college,  every  tutor  hath  his 
own  pupils,  which  he  rules;  and  if  we  suppose  but  one  tutor 
at  first  in  the  college,  with  his  pupils,  all  the  power,  both 
common  to  the  society,  and  peculiar  to  his  flock,  is  joined 
together;  but  when  there  are  many  more  tutors,  having  pupils 
under  their  charge,  all  these,  for  their  better  ordering  as  a 
society,  must  be  governed  by  the  common  government  of  the 
college,  to  which  the  particular  government  of  every  tutor  is 
and  must  be  subordinate:  but  this  will  be  more  fully  made 
appear  in  the  original  of  civil  government.  It  is  far  more 
evident,  that  all  civil  power  lay  at  first  in  Adam  and  his 
family,  and  afterwards  in  particular  families,  than  that  all 
church  power  lay  in  particular  congregations  at  first.  We 
may  then  with  as  good  reason  say,  that  there  is  no  lawful 
civil  government  now,  but  that  of  particular  families;  and  that 
no  national  government  hath  any  right  or  power  over  par- 
ticular families,  because  families  had  once  all  civil  power 
within  themselves;  as  because  it  is  supposed,  that  all  church 
power  lay  first  in  particular  congregations,  therefore  there 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  157 

must  be  no  church  power  above  them;  nor  that  particular 
congregations  are  subject  to  such  government  as  is  requisite 
for  the  regulating  of  the  society  in  common,  as  comprehending 
in  it  many  particular  congregations.  Let  them  show  then, 
how  any  government  in  the  state  is  lawful,  when  families  had 
the  first  power,  and  by  what  right  now  those  families  are 
subordinate  to  the  civil  magistrate,  and  what  necessity  there 
is  for  it;  and  by  the  very  same  reasons  will  we  show  the  law- 
fulness of  government  in  the  church  over  many  congregations, 
and  that  those  are  by  the  same  right,  and  upon  the  same 
necessity,  to  subordinate  themselves  to  the  government  of  the 
church,  considered  as  a  society  taking  in  many  particular 
congregations.  The  parallel  runs  on  further  and  clearer  still: 
for  as  the  heads  of  the  several  families  after  the  flood,  had  the 
command  over  all  dwelling  under  their  roofs,  while  they  re- 
mained in  one  family;  and  when  that  increased  into  more, 
their  power  was  extended  over  them  too;  which  was  the  first 
original  of  monarchy  in  the  world:  so  the  planters  of  the  first 
churches,  that  while  the  church  was  but  one  congregation, 
had  power  over  it,  when  this  congregation  was  multiplied 
into  more,  their  power  equally  extended  over  them  all.  And 
as  afterwards,  several  heads  of  families  upon  their  increase, 
did  constitute  distinct  civil  governments,  wherein  were  sub- 
ordinate officers,  but  those  governments  themselves  were  co- 
ordinate one  with  another:  so  in  the  church,  so  many  con- 
gregations as  make  up  one  provincial,  or  national  society,  (as 
succession  and  prudence  doth  order  the  bounds  of  them,)  do 
make  up  several  particular  churches,  enjoining  their  officers 
ruling  them,  but  subordinate  to  the  governors  of  the  church 
in  common:  which  society,  national  or  provincial,  is  subordi- 
nate to  none  beyond  itself,  but  enjoys  a  free  power  within 
itself  of  ordering  things  for  its  own  government,  as  it  judgeth 
most  convenient,  and  agreeable  to  the  rules  of  scripture.  The 
sum  then  of  what  I  say,  concerning  subordination  of  officers 
and  powers  in  the  society  of  the  church,  is  this,  that  by  the 
light  and  law  of  nature  it  appears,  that  no  individual  com- 
pany or  congregation,  hath  an  absolute,  independent  power 
within  itself;  but  that,  for  the  redressing  grievances  happening 
in  them,  appeals  are  necessary  by  the  parties  aggrieved,  and 
a  subordination  of  that  particular  congregation,  to  the  govern- 
ment of  the  society  in  common.  So  that,  the  right  of  appealing, 
and  original  of  subordination,  is  from  nature;  the  particular 
manner  and  form  of  subordinate  and  superior  courts,  is  to  be 


158  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

fetched  from  positive  laws-/  the  limitation  of  appeals,  extent 
of  jurisdiction,  the  binding  power  of  sentence,  so  far  as  con- 
cerns external  unity  in  the  church,  is  to  be  fetched  from  the 
power  of  the  magistrate,  and  civil  sanctions  and  constitutions. 
The  church's  power,  as  to  divine  law,  being  only  directive 
and  declarative;  but  being  confirmed  by  a  civil  sanction,  is 
juridical  and  obligatory.  Concerning  the  magistrate's  power 
to  call,  confirm,  alter,  repeal  the  decrees  of  synods;  see  Gro- 
tius,  Chamier,  Whitaker,  Casaubon,  Mornay,  and  others, 
who  fully  and  largely  handle  it;  to  whom  having  nothing  to 
add,  I  will  take  nothing  at  all  from  them:  as  for  that  time 
when  the  church  was  without  magistrates  ruling  in  it,  in 
those  things  left  undetermined  by  the  rule  of  the  word,  they 
acted  out  of  principles  of  Christian  prudence  agreeable  to  the 
rules  of  scripture,  and  from  the  principles  of  the  law  of  nature; 
one  of  which  we  come  in  the  next  place  to  speak  to.  So 
much  for  the  church's  power,  considered  as  a  society  for  end- 
ing controversies,  arising  within  itself,  tending  to  break  the 
peace  and  unity  of  it. 

'  Grot,  de  Imp.  sumin.  Potest,  cap.  7,  s.  14,  15,  &c.  c.  8,  s.  13.  Chamier:  tom. 
2,  1.  13,  c.  12.  Whitaker  Conlr,  3  q.  2.  Cas.  de  Lib.  Eccles.  cap.  2.  Mornse. 
hist.  Papatus  passim. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  159 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  fifth  thing  dictated  by  the  law  of  nature;  that  all  that  are  admitted  into  this 
society,  must  consent  to  be  governed  by  the  laws  and  rules  of  it.  Civil  socie- 
ties founded  upon  mutual  consent;  express  in  the  first  entrance,  implicit  in 
others  born  under  societies  actually  formed.  Consent  as  to  a  Church  neces- 
sary, the  manner  of  consent  determined  by  Christ  by  Baptism  and  profession. 
Implicit  consent  supposed  in  all  baptized;  explicit,  declared  by  challenging  the 
privileges,  and  observing  the  duties  of  the  Covenant.  Explicit  by  express 
owning  the  Gospel  when  adult,  very  useful  for  recovering  the  credit  of  Chris- 
tianity. The  discipline  of  the  primitive  Church  cleared  from  Origeji,  Justin 
Martyr,  Pliny,  Teriullian.  The  necessary  requisites  of  church  membership, 
whether  positive  signs  of  grace:  explicit  Covenant,  how  far  necessary;  not  the 
formal  constitution  of  a  church:  proved  by  several  arguments. 

§  1.  The  law  of  nature  dictates,  that  all  tvho  are  admitted 
into  this  society,  must  consent  to  be  governed  by  the  laws 
and  rides  of  that  society,  according  to  its  const itiit ion.  For 
none  can  be  looked  upon  as  a  member  of  a  society,  but  such 
a  one  as  submits  to  the  rules  and  laws  of  the  society,  as  con- 
stituted at  the  time  of  his  entrance  into  it.  That  all  civil  soci- 
eties are  founded  upon  voluntary  consent  and  agreement  of 
parties,  and  do  depend  upon  contracts  and  covenants  made 
between  them,  is  evident  to  any  that  consider  that  men  are 
not  bound  by  the  law  of  nature  to  associate  themselves  with 
any  but  whom  they  shall  judge  fit;  that  dominion  and  pro- 
priety were  introduced  by  free  consent  of  men:  and  so  there 
must  be  laws  and  bonds  fit,  agreeinent  made,  and  submission 
acknowledged  to  those  laws,  else  men  might  plead  their 
natural  right  and  freedom  still,  which  would  be  destructive  to 
the  very  nature  of  these  societies.  When  men  then  did  first 
part  with  their  natural  liberties,  two  things  were  necessary  in 
the  most  express  terms  to  be  declared:  first,  a  free  and  volun- 
tary consent  to  part  with  so  much  of  their  natural  rights  as 
was  not  consistent  with  the  well  being  of  the  society:  secondly, 
a  free  submission  to  all  laws,  which  should  be  agreed  upon  at 
their  entrance  into  society,  or  afterwards  as  they  see  cause. 


160  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF  ^ 

But  when  societies  were  already  entered,  and  children  born 
under  them,  no  such  express  consent  was  required  in  them, 
being  bound  by  virtue  of  the  protection  they  find  from  autho- 
rity to  submit  to  it,  and  an  implicit  consent  is  supposed  in  all 
such  as  are  born  under  that  authority.  But  for  their  more 
full  understanding  of  this  obligation  of  theirs,  and  to  lay  the 
greater  tie  of  obedience  upon  them,  when  they  come  to  under- 
standing, it  hath  been  conceived  very  requisite  by  most  states 
to  have  an  explicit  declaration  of  their  consent,  either  by  some 
formal  oath  of  allegiance,  or  some  other  way  sufficiently  ex- 
pressing their  fidelity,  in  standing  to  the  covenants  long  since 
supposed  to  be  made.     To  apply  this  now  to  the  church. 

We  have  all  along  hitherto  considered  the  church  in  gene- 
ral, as  a  society  or  corporation  which  was  necessary  in  order 
to  our  discovering  what  is  in  it,  from  the  light  of  nature  with- 
out positive  laws. 

§  2.  But  here  we  must  take  notice  of  what  was  observed  by 
father  Laynez,  the  Jesuit  at  the  Council  of  Trent,  that  it  is  not 
with  the  church  as  with  other  societies,  which  are  first  them- 
selves, and  then  constitute  the  governors.^  But  the  Governor 
of  this  society  was  first  himself,  and  he  appointed  what  orders, 
rules,  and  laws  should  govern  this  society;  and  wherein  he 
hath  determined  anything,  we  are  bound  to  look  upon  that, 
as  necessary  to  the  maintaining  of  that  society  which  is  built 
upon  his  constitution  of  it.  And  in  many  of  those  orders 
which  Christ  hath  settled  in  his  church,  the  foundation  of 
them  is  in  the  law  of  natu're;  but  the  particular  determination 
of  the  manner  of  them  is  from  himself.  Thus  it  is  in  the  case 
we  are  now  upon;  nature  requires  that  every  one  entering 
into  a  society,  should  consent  to  the  rules  of  it.  Our  Saviour 
hath  determined  how  this  consent  should  be  expressed,  viz. 
by  receiving  baptism  from  those  who  have  the  power  to  dis- 
pense it:  which  is  the  federal  rite  whereby  our  consent  is  ex- 
pressed to  own  all  the  laws  and  submit  to  them,  whereby  this 
society  is  governed:  which  at  the  first  entering  of  men  into 
this  society  of  the  church  was  requisite  to  be  done  by  the  ex- 
press and  explicit  consent  of  the  parties  themselves,  being  of 
sufficient  capacity  to  declare  it,  but  the  covenant  being  once 
entered  into  by  themselves,  not  only  in  their  own  name,  but 
in  the  name  of  their  posterity,  (a  thing  implied  in  all  covenants 
wherein  benefits  do  redound  to  posterity,^  that  the  obligation 

1  Hist.  Council  of  Trent,  1.  7,  p.  612. 

2  Deut.  xxix.  15,  Acts  ii.  38. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  161 

should  reach  them  too;  but  more  particular  in  this,  it  having 
been  always  the  tenor  of  God's  covenants  with  men,  to  enter 
the  seed  as  well  as  the  persons  themselves,  as  to  outward 
privileges,)  an  implicit  consent  as  to  the  children  in  covenant, 
is  sufficient  to  enter  them  upon  the  privileges  of  it  by  baptism, 
although  withal  it  be  highly  rational  for  their  better  under- 
standing the  engagement  they  entered  into,  that  when  they 
come  to  age,  they  should  exphcitly  declare  their  own  volun- 
tary consent  to  submit  to  the  laws  of  Christ,  and  to  conform 
their  lives  to  the  profession  of  Christianity,  which  might  be  a 
more  than  probable  way,  and  certainly  most  agreeable  both 
to  reason  and  Scripture  to  advance  the  credit  of  Christianity 
once  more  in  the  world,  which  at  this  day  so  much  suffers  by 
so  many  professing  it  without  understanding  the  terms  of  it; 
who  swallow  down  a  profession  of  Christianity,  as  boys  do 
pills,  without  knowing  what  they  are  compounded  of,  which 
is  the  great  reason  it  works  so  little  alteration  upon  their 
spirits. 

§  3.  The  one  great  cause  of  the  great  flourishing  of  religion 
in  the  primitive  times,  was  certainly  the  strictness  used  by 
them  in  their  admission  of  members  into  church  societies, 
which  is  fully  described  by  Origen^  against  Celsus,  who  tells 

us  they  did  t^cea^nv  t'oijj  ptouj  xat  tai  oiywyaj  iuv   Tt^oaiovii^jv,  "  m- 

quire  into  their  lives  and  carriages,  to  discern  their  serious- 
ness in  the  profession  of  Christianity  during  their  being  cate- 
chumens:" who  after  tells  us  they  did  require  to  xtxaeapOat,  arto 
-tov  axoyoD  xat,  oayj  Sojva^itij  ^cMiov  j3s6i,oxsvat,,  "  true  repentance  and 

reiormation  OI    lite,      to  trivixaSe  xaXovixsv  avtov^  £7iv   1'aj   rtap  ^ju.u' 

tiXita^,  "  then  we  admit  them  to  the  participation  of  our  mys- 
teries." I  confess  the  discipline  of  the  primitive  church  hath 
been  very  much  misrepresented  to  us,  by  men's  looking  upon 
it  through  the  glass  of  the  modern  practices  and  customs  ob- 
taining among  us:  as  though  all  this  only  concerned  the 
admission  to  the  Lord's  supper:  though  that  was  always  in 
chief  veneration  in  the  church  of  God,  as  being  the  chief  of 
gospel  mysteries,^  (as  they  loved  to  speak,)  yet  I  cannot  find 
that  any  were  admitted  to  all  other  ordinances  freely  with 
them  who  were  debarred  from  this:  but  their  admission  to 
one,  did  include  an  admission  to  all:  so  on  the  contrary,  I  find 
none  admitted  to  baptism,  who  were  not  to  the  Lord's  supper; 

1  Lib.  3,  p.  142,  143,  and  147. 

2  Tertul.  Apol.  c.  39,  describes  exclusion  to  be  a  coinmunicaiione  Orationis  et 
conventus,  et  omnis  sancti  cotnmercii,  or  an  exclusion  from  discourse,  assemblies, 
and  all  holy  fellowship. 

21 


162  THE  DIVINE  KIGHT  OF 

and  if  catechumens^  presently  after,  only  confirmation  inter- 
vening, (which  will  hardly  be  ever  found  separate  from  bap- 
tism, till  the  distinction  of  the  double  Chrism  in  vertice  et 
pectore  came  up, "on  the  head  and  breast,"  which  was  about 
Jer ant's  time!) 

§  4.  The  thing  then  which  the  primitive  church  required 
in  admitting  persons  adult  to  baptism,  and  so  to  the  Lord's 
supper,  was  a  serious  visible  profession  of  Christianity;  which 
was  looked  upon  by  them  as  the  greatest  evidence  of  their 
real  consent  to  the  rules  of  the  gospel.  For  that  purpose  it 
will  be  worth  our  taking  notice  what  is  set  down  by  Justin 
Martyr,  J2polog.  2,^  speaking  of  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
supper,  "  But  this  food,  amongst  us,  is  called  the  eucharist,  of 
which  it  is  permitted  to  none  to  partake,  except  to  those 
believing  that  the  doctrines  taught  amongst  us  are  true,  and 
hath  been  washed  to  the  remission  of  sins,  and  to  the  baptism 
of  regeneration,  and  so  walk  as  Christ  enjoined."^  Where 
we  see  what  was  required  before  admission  to  the  Lord's 
supper,  "a  profession  of  faith  in  the  truths  of  the  gospel, 
and  answerable  life  to  the  gospel,  without  which  it  was  not 
lawful  to  participate  of  the  Lord's  supper."  And  further,  we 
see  by  Pliny,  that  the  Christians  of  those  times  did  make  use 
of  some  solemn  engagements  among  themselves  which  he 
calls  sacramenta;  "  they  bound  themselves  by  an  oath,^  not 
to  commit  theft,  robbery,  adultery,  nor  to  swerve  from  the 
faith,"-*  &c.;  and  Tertullian  reports  it  out  of  Pliny, ^  that  he 
found  nothing  de  sacramentis  eorum^  (as  Junius  first  reads 
it  out  of  MS.  for  de  Sacris,  after  him  Heraldus,  and  as  it  is 
now  read  in  Rigaltius'  edition,)  besides  cautelam  et  ad  con- 
foederandam  disciplinam,,  etc.  scelera prohibentes,  "a.  security 
both  for  covenanting,  as  to  discipline,  and  for  the  prohibition 
of  crime,"  which  Eusebius'^  calls  avvOtjxai,  "convention," 
pacta,  "covenants"  between  them;  and  so  Master  Selden^ 

»  P.  97,  ed.  Paris,  1636. 

irt^svovri  aXri^ri  £ivai  ra  JsSiJay/xEm  £<f>  ri/xaiv,  x.a.i  Xovj-afxivo)  to  vTte^  a<pia-tci}g  afxafrmiv 

3  The  Latin  word  sacramentum  signified  an  oath,  as  well  as  the  eucharist. 
The  utmost  this  can  prove  is,  tiiat  they  considered  taking  the  sacrament,  relative 
to  tacit  or  expressed  obligations,  equivalent  to  an  oath. — Am.  Ed. 

4  Se  Sacramento  obstringere  n6  furta,  ne  latrocinia,  n6  adulteria  committcrent, 
n6  fidem  fallerent. 

5  Lib.  10,  ch.  97. 

6  "Concerning  their  sacraments." 

7  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  3,  cap.  33. 

^  Selden.  de  Synod.  1.  1,  cap.  9.     V.  Heraldum  in  Tcrtul.  Apologet.  cap.  39 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  168 

interprets  the  place  of  Origen  in  ihc  beginning  of  his  book 
against  Celsus,  where  Celsus  begins  his  charge  against  the 

Christians^  65   avv^rixai   xpv^Srjv   rtpoj    d%'Ki^%ovi     jiovovfiivi^v    ;);^is'tai'wv 

rta^a  ■ta.vBvo^i,si;,s[ia,  "  that  the  Christians  were  secretly  devising 
contracts  one  with  another  against  matters  established  by 
law,"  where  he  takes  ow^jixaj,  not,  as  Gelenius  renders  it,  con- 
venhis,  but  in  its  proper  sense  for  contracts  or  covenants  that 
were  made  by  the  Christians,  as  by  other  societies,  only  per- 
mitted, and  tolerated  by  the  commonwealth.  And  we  find  by 
Fliny,  ihdii  when  the  Ae^c-e?'/*,  "  sects  among  Ihe  JRomans,'' 
were  forbidden,  he  brought  the  Christians  in  under  that  law; 
the  ground  of  those  societies  was  only  a  mutual  compact  and 
agreement  among  the  persons  of  it:  such  as  among  the  Essenes 
of  the  Jetvs,  and  the  schools  of  philosophers  among  the 
Greeks.  Josejjhus  mentions  the  b^xovi  ^^sxaSui,  "horrible 
oaths,"  of  those  who  were  admitted  into  the  society  of  the 
Essenes.  And  so  in  all  other  societies  which  subsist  only  from 
mutual  confederation  in  a  co^mmonwealth.^  Thus  I  acknow- 
ledge it  to  be  in  Christianity,  that  there  must  be  such  a  sup- 
posed contract  or  voluntary  consent  in  the  persons  engaged 
in  such  societies.  But  with  this  observable  diiference,  that 
although  there  must  be  a  consent  in  both,  yet  the  one  is 
wholly  free  as  to  any  pre-engagement  or  obligation,  to  wit,  as 
well  as  to  the  act  itself;  but  in.  religious  societies,  though  the 
act  of  consent  be  free,  yet  there  is  an  antecedent  obligation 
upon  men,  binding  them  to  this  voluntary  consent.  The  want 
of  the  understanding  this  difference,  is  the  very  foundation  of 
that  opinion  men  call  Erastianism.  For  the  followers  of 
Erastiis,  when  they  find  that  Christians  did  act  ex  confcede- 
ratd  disciplincl,  "from  confederated  discipline,"  they  presently 
conclude  all  church  power  lay  only  in  mutual  consent.  It  is 
granted,  church  power  doth  suppose  consent;  but  then  all 
Christians  are  under  an  obligation  from  the  nature  of  Chris- 
tianity to  express  this  consent,  and  to  submit  to  all  censures 
legally  inflicted.  About  the  hetserix  and  societies  among  the 
Romans,  we  may  take  notice  of  the  law  of  the  Twelve  Tables. 
So  in  the  collection  of  Lud.  Charondus.^  "  Let  the  power  of 
covenanting  what  they  will,  be  granted  societies  of  the  same 
college,  having  the  right  of  fellowship,  and  agreeing  amongst 
themselves,  provided  that  they  infringe  not  on  any  public  law." 

J  Joseph.  Hales,  p.  2,  cap.  12. 

2  Sodalibus  qui  ejusdcm  Collegii  sunt,  et  jus  coeundi  habent,  potestas  csto  pac 
lionis  quam  volent  inter  se  inuendae  dum  n6  quid  ex  publics,  lege  corrumpant.  Ex 
Caio,  c.  4,  D.  de  collec.  et  coip. 


164  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

§  5. 1  confess,  when  persons  are  entered  into  a  visible  cliurch 
society  by  baptism,  if  they  will  own  that  profession  they 
were  baptized  into,  and  are  not  guilty  either  of  plain  igno- 
rance, or  manifest  scandal,  and  demand  as  their  right  the 
other  ordinances  of  the  gospel;  I  see  not  by  what  power  they 
may  be  excluded.  If  we  fix  not  in  a  serious  visible  profession 
as  the  ground  of  giving  right,  but  require  positive  evidences 
of  grace  in  every  one  to  be  admitted  to  ordinances  as  the 
only  thing  giving  right,  for  my  part,  setting  aside  the  many 
inconveniences  besides,  which  attend  that  in  reference  to  the 
persons  to  be  admitted,  I  see  not  how  with  a  safe  and  good 
conscience  ordinances  can  be  administered  by  any.  My  rea- 
son is  this:  Every  one,  especially  a  minister,  in  that  case 
ought  to  proceed  upon  certain  grounds  that  the  person  ad- 
mitted hath  right  to  the  ordinance  to  be  administered;  but 
if  positive  signs  of  grace  be  required,  a  man's  conscience 
cannot  proceed  upon  any  certainty,  without  infallible  know- 
ledge of  another's  spiritual  state,  which  I  suppose  none  will 
pretend  to.  My  meaning  is,  that  which  gives  right,  must  be 
something  evident  to  the  person  admitting  into  it,  if  it  be  his 
duty  to  inquire  after  it;  but  if  only  positive  signs  of  grace  be 
looked  on,  as  giving  right,  the  ground  of  right  can  never  be 
so  evident  to  another  person,  as  to  proceed  with  a  good  con- 
science, i.  e.  with  a  full  persuasion  of  another's  right  to  the 
administration  of  any  ordinance  to  him.  If  it  be  said,  that 
these  are  required  only  as  tokens  of  a  true  visible  profession, 
and  it  is  that  which  gives  the  right;  I  reply,  our  knowledge 
of,  and  assent  to  the  conclusion,  can  be  no  stronger,  nor  more 
certain  than  to  the  premises  from  whence  it  is  inferred,  if 
therefore  true  profession  gives  right,  and  our  knowledge  of 
that  proceeds  upon  our  knowledge  of  the  work  of  grace,  we 
are  left  at  the  same  uncertainty  we  were  at  before.  But  if 
we  say,  that  an  outward  profession  of  the  gospel  (where 
there  is  nothing  rendering  men  incapable  of  owning  it,  which 
is  ignorance,  nor  declaring  they  do  not  own  it,  which  is 
scandal)  is  that  which  gives  a  visible  right  to  the  ordinances 
of  the  church  as  visible,  we  have  something  to  fix  ourselves 
upon,  and  to  found  a  persuasion  of  the  right  of  persons  to 
ordinances. 

Christ  when  he  instituted  churches,  did  institute  them  as 
visible  societies,  that  is,  to  have  marks  whereby  to  be  known 
and  distinguished,  as  other  societies  in  the  world  are:  now 
that  vi^hich  puts  a  difference  between  this  and  other  societies, 
is  an  open   profession   of  Christianity,  which  profession  is 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  165 

looked  upon  as  the  outward  expression  of  the  internal  con- 
sent of  the  soul  to  the  doctrine  and  laws  of  the  gospel. 
Which  outward  evidence  of  consent,  where  there  is  nothing 
evidently  and  directly  oppugning  it,  is  that  which  the  church 
of  God  in  admission  of  visible  members  is  to  proceed  upon. 
I  nowhere  find  that  ever  Christ  or  his  apostles,  in  making 
disciples,  or  admitting  to  church  membership,  did  exact  any 
more  than  a  professed  willingness  to  adhere  to  the  doctrine 
which  they  preached;  nor  that  they  refused  any  one  who  did 
declare  their  desire  to  join  with  them.  An  owning  Christi- 
anity is  all  we  read  of  antecedent  to  admission  of  church 
members.  And  if  anything  else  be  farther  required  as  neces- 
sary, we  must  either  say  the  word  of  God  is  defective  in 
institutions  of  necessity  to  tlie  church,  which  I  suppose  the 
assertors  of  it  will  not  be  so  inconsistent  to  their  own  princi- 
ples, as  to  do;  or  else  must  produce,  where  anything  further 
is  required  by  the  word  of  God. 

§  6.  By  this  we  may  see  what  to  answer  those  who  require 
an  explicit  covenant  from  all  members  of  the  church,  as  that 
which  gives  the  form  and  being  to  a  church.  If  they  mean 
only  in  the  first  constitution  of  a  visible  church,  an  express 
owning  of  the  gospel  covenant;  there  is  none  will  deny  that 
to  be  necessary  to  make  one  a  member  of  the  visible  church 
of  Christ.  If  they  further  mean,  that  there  must  be  a  real 
confederation  between  those  who  join  together  in  gospel 
ordinances  in  order  to  their  being  a  church,  I  know  none  will 
question  it  that  know  what  it  is  that  makes  a  society  to  be  so; 
which  is  such  a  real  confederation  with  one  another.  If  they 
mean  further,  that  though  Christians  be  bound  by  virtue  of 
their  gospel  covenant  to  join  with  some  church  society,  yet 
not  being  determined  by  Scripture  to  what  particular  church 
they  should  join;  therefore  for  Christians'  better  understand- 
ing what  their  mutual  duty  is  to  one  another;  and  who  that 
pastor  is  to  whom  they  owe  the  relation  of  member,  that 
there  should  be  some  significant  declaration  either  by  words 
or  actions  of  their  willingness  to  join  with  such  a  particular 
society  in  gospel  ordinances;  I  shall  grant  this  to  be  necessary 
too.  But  if  beyond  this  their  meaning  be,  that  a  formal  ex- 
plicit covenant  be  absolutely  necessary  to  make  any  one  a 
member  of  a  church,  I  see  no  reason  for  it.     For, 

1.  If  there  may  be  a  real  confederation  witliout  this,  then 
this  is  not  necessary;  but  there  may  be  a  real  confederation 
without  this  explicit  covenant:  as  appears  in  those  churches 
of  Christ,  both  in  primitive  times,  and  since  the  reformation, 


166  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

who  have  never  used  it,  which  none  I  suppose  who  maintain 
this  opinion  will  deny  to  have  been  true  visible  churches  of 
Christ. 

2.  If  the  gospel  covenant  entered  into  by  any  gives  a  right 
to  gospel  ordinances  by  itself,  then  an  explicit  covenant  is  not 
that  which  makes  one  a  member  of  a  church;  but  the  gospel 
covenant  gives  that  right  to  all  gospel  ordinances.  If  by 
baptism,  the  person  baptized  have  a  legal  title  to  all  gospel 
ordinances;  then,  &c.  The  jninor  appears,  in  that  they  are 
admitted  church  members  by  baptism;  and  how  can  any  be  a 
member  of  a  church,  and  not  have  right  to  all  the  ordinances 
in  it,  supposing  capacity  to  receive  them?  A  right  once  re- 
ceived, continues  till  it  be  forfeited,  especially  when  it  is  such 
a  right  as  is  not  limited  to  any  particular  privileges,  but 
to  all  the  privileges  of  that  society  into  which  they  are  en- 
tered. 

3.  The  reality  of  consent  may  be  sufficiently  manifested 
without  an  explicit  covenant;  as  in  the  joining  with  those 
who  are  under  the  same  profession  in  the  common  acts  of  the 
society,  and  acceptance  of,  and  submission  to  the  rulers  of  that 
society,  which  implicitly  is  that  covenant  which  they  would 
have  expressed;  and  actions  in  this  case,  are  as  declarative  and 
significative  as  words. 

4.  If  a  church  may  cease  to  be  a  true  church  without  ex- 
plicit disowning  such  a  covenant,  then  it  is  not  explicit  cove- 
nanting which  makes  a  church;  but  a  church  may  cease  to  be 
a  true  church  without  explicit  disowning  it;  as  in  case  of  uni- 
versal corruption,  as  to  word  and  sacraments;  as  in  the  church 
oi  Rome,  that  still  owns  herself  for  a  church.  The  ground  of 
the  consequence  is  from  the  parity  of  reason  as  to  contraries. 

§  7.  But  though  I  see  no  reason  at  all,  why  an  explicit 
covenant  should  be  so  necessary  to  a  church,  that  we  cannot 
suppose  a  true  church  without  it;  yet  I  no  ways  deny  the  law- 
fulness or  expediency,  in  many  cases,  of  having  a  personal 
profession  from  all  baptized  in  infancy,  when  they  come  to  age, 
(wliich  we  may,  if  we  please,  call  confirmation^  and  the  ne- 
cessity of  desiring  admission,  in  order  to  participation  of  all 
ordinances:  which  desire  of  admission,  doth  necessarily  imply 
men's  consenting  to  the  laws  of  that  society,  and  walking  ac- 
cording to  the  duties  of  it;  and  so  they  are  consequentially 
and  virtually,  thongh  not  expressly  and  formally,  bound  to 
all  the  duties  required  of  them  in  that  relation.  When 
churches  are  overrun  with  looseness,  ignorance,  and  profane- 
ness,  or  when  Christians  are  under  persecution,  an  external 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  167 

profession  of  the  gospel  covenant,  and  declaring  their  owning 
the  society  they  are  entered  into,  and  submitting  to  the  laws 
of  it,  may  be,  if  not  wholly  necessary,  yet  very  useful  and 
expedient:  and  indeed,  at  all  times  we  see  people  understand 
so  little  of  their  duty  or  engagements,  and  are  so  hardly 
brought  under  the  exercise  of  gospel  discipline,  that  an  open 
profession  of  their  submission  to  the  rules  of  the  gospel,  seems 
the  most  likely  way  to  advance  the  practice,  power,  and 
purity  of  religion:  but  of  this  much  is  spoken  by  others  lately, 
and  therefore  I  supersede.  From  all  this  we  see,  that  every 
society,  implying  a  joining  together  in  some  common  duties, 
nature  tells  us  there  must  be  a  real  consenting  together, 
explicit  or  implicit,  in  all  persons  who  enter  into  such  a 
society. 


168  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  last  thing  dictated  by  the  law  of  nature,  is,  that  every  offender  against  tlie 
laws  of  the  society,  must  give  an  account  of  his  actions  to  the  governors  of  it, 
and  submit  to  the  censures  inflicted  upon  him  by  them.  Tlie  original  of 
penalties  in  societies.  The  nature  of  them,  according  to  the  nature  and  ends 
of  societies.  The  penaltj'  of  tlie  church  no  civil  mulct;  because  its  laws  and 
ends  are  different  from  civil  societies.  The  practice  of  the  Druids  in  excom- 
munication. Among  the  Jews,  whether  a  mere  civil  or  sacred  penalty.  The 
latter  proved  by  six  arguments.  Objections  answered.  The  original  of  the 
mistake  showed.     The  first  part  concluded. 

§  1.  Nature  dictates  further,  that  in  a  well-ordered  so- 
ciety, every  offender  against  the  rules  of  that  society  must 
give  an  account  of  his  actions  to  the  governors  of  that  so- 
ciety, and  submit  to  the  censures  of  it,  according  to  the 
judgmeiit  of  the  rulers  of  it.  In  all  societies  subsisting  by 
laws,  men  being  more  ruled  by  hopes  and  fears  than  by  a 
sense  of  duty,  or  love  of  goodness,  it  is  necessary  for  main- 
taining a  society,  that  there  must  be  not  only  a  declaration  of 
what  men  ought  to  do,  but  a  setting  forth  the  penalties  which 
they  must  undergo  upon  violation  of  the  laws  whereon  the 
society  doth  subsist:  and  as  there  must  be  penalties  annexed, 
as  the  sanction  of  the  law,  so  it  must  of  necessity  be  implied 
in  a  well-ordered  society,  that  every  person,  as  he  doth  pro- 
mise obedience  to  the  law,  so  by  the  same  obligation  he  is 
bound  to  submit  to  the  penalties  upon  disobedience:  for  what- 
ever law  binds  to  duty  where  there  is  a  penalty  threatened, 
doth  bind  likewise  to  punishment  upon  neglect  of  duty:  for 
no  sooner  is  the  law  broken,  but  the  offender  lies  under  the 
penal  sanction  of  that  law,  and  is  thereby  bound  to  give  an 
account  of  himself  and  actions,  to  those  governors  who  are 
bound  to  see  the  laws  obeyed,  or  offenders  punished.  Guilt 
follows  immediately  upon  the  breach  of  the  law,  which  is 
nothing  else  but  the  offender's  obligation  to  punishment.  From 
this  obligation  on  the  offender's  part,  ariseth  a  new  relation 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  169 

between  tlie  governor  of  the  society  and  the  offender.  On 
the  governor's  part,  a  right  to  punish,  vindictive  justice  sup- 
posing offences  committed,  and  on  the  offender's  part,  an  obli- 
gation to  undergo  what  shall  be  inflicted  upon  him  for  his 
offence:  punishment  being  nothing  else  but  malum  passionis 
oh  malum  actionis,  *«suiTering  an  evil  inflicted  on  account  of 
an  evil  done."  There  must  be  then  these  things  supposed  in 
any  well  ordered  society;  laws  to  be  governed  by,  rulers 
to  see  the  laws  kept,  or  offenders  punished,  penalties  made 
known  for  ofienders,  submission  of  the  persons  in  the  societies 
to  the  penaUies,  if  they  deserve  them.  But  now  of  what 
kind,  nature,  and  degree  the  penalties  must  be,  must  be  re- 
solved according  to  the  nature,  end,  and  design  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  society.  If  it  be  a  society  for  preservation  of 
the  rights  of  bodies,  or  estates,  the  penalties  must  be  either 
pecuniary  or  corporal:  and  the  ground  is,  because  the  end 
of  legal  punishment  is  not  properly  revenge,  but  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  society,  which  without  punishments  could  not  be. 
A  threefold  end  is  therefore  assigned  to  punishments;  the  re- 
formation of  the  offending  person,  the  prevention  of  further 
offences  in  the  society  of  the  same  kind,  and  the  being  a 
terror  and  example  to  others;  the  first  is  called  j^oD^scsia,  xoxaatj, 
or  rtae^atvaaii,  ''reprehension,  restraint,  check."  The  second 
T'e.;U«p(.a,  "vengeance,"  being  for  the  preservation  of  the  honour 
of  the  magistrate:  the  third  ?ta^aSEty;tta,  "punishment  by  making 
an  example  of,"  when  the  punishment  is  inflicted  upon  one, 
that  others  should  take  notice  of  it;  which  must  be  always 
done  in  a  public  manner.  So  7ta^tx,biiyiJia.tLaa.i,  "to  make  a 
public  example  of,"  in  Matthew,  is  opposed  to  T^a^^a  amoi^-Dsac, 
"privately  to  dismiss."^ 

§  2.  These  things  being  thus  in  general  considered,  come  we 
now  to  apply  it  to  the  church  considered  as  a  society.  That 
it  hath  peculiar  laws  to  be  governed  by,  appears  by  the  dis- 
tinct nature,  end,  and  design  of  the  constitution  of  it;  which  is 
not  to  preserve  any  outward  rights,  but  to  maintain  and  keep 
up  a  religious  society  for  the  service  of  God;  and  therefore 
the  penal  sanctions  of  these  laws  cannot  properly  be  any  cor- 
poral or  pecuniary  mulct,  but  somewhat  answerable  to  the 
nature  of  the  society.  It  must  be  then  somewhat  which 
implies  the  deprivation  of  that  which  is  the  chief  benefit  of 
that  society.     The  benefits  of  it  are  the  privileges  and  honour 

>  Gellius  Noct.  Attic.  1.  16,  c.  16.  V.  Grotium  de  jure  belli,  I.  2,  c.  20,  s.  6,  7, 
8.    Matth.  i.  19. 

22 


170  THE  DIVINE   RIGHT  OF 

which  men  enjoy  by  thus  associating  themselves  for  so  higli 
an  employment:  that  punishment  then  must  be  the  loss  of 
those  privileges  which  the  corporation  enjoys,  which  must  be 
by  exchision  of  the  offending  persons  from  communion  with 
the  society.  Hence  we  see  it  is  evident,  that  which  we  call 
excommunication  is  the  greatest  penalty  which  the  church, 
as  a  society,  can  inflict  upon  the  members  of  it,  considered  as 
such.  And  hence  it  is  likewise  clear,  that  as  the  society  of 
the  church  is  distinct  from  others,  the  laws,  ends,  governors 
of  a  different  nature;  so  the  punishment  must  be  a  punish- 
ment distinct  from  civil,  and  ordained  wholly  in  order  to  the 
peculiar  ends  of  this  society;  which  they  do  not  well  consider, 
who  deny  any  such  power  as  that  of  excommunication  pecu- 
liar to  the  church,  which  is  as  much  as  to  deny  that  the  laws 
whereby  the  church  is  ruled,  are  different  from  the  civil  laws, 
or  the  end  of  this  society  from  the  ends  of  civil  societies:  for 
the  punishment  must  be  proportioned  to  the  laws,  and  referred 
immediately  to  its  proper  ends.  It  were  no  ways  difficult 
to  answer  the  pretences  brought  against  this:  for  although  I 
acknowledge  a  subordination  of  this  religious  society  to  the 
supreme  authority  in  the  commonwealth,  and  that  the  rules 
concerning  the  government  of  the  society  in  common  must 
have  their  sanction  from  thence;  yet  this  no  ways  implies  but 
it  may  have  its  peculiar  penalties  and  power  to  inflict  them, 
any  more  than  any  company  of  tradesmen  have  not  power  to 
exclude  any  from  their  company  for  l)reaking  the  rules  of  tlie 
company,  because  they  are  subordinate  to  the  supreme  autho- 
rity: or  any  college  to  expel  any  from  thence,  for  breaking 
the  local  statutes  of  it,  which  are  distinct  from  the  common 
laws.  Nor  is  it  any  argument,  that  because  Christians  had 
mutual  confederations  in  times  of  persecution  for  the  exercise 
of  censures,  therefore  these  censures  were  only  arbitrary  and 
human;  unless  it  be  proved,  that  it  was  not  a  duty  in  them 
so  to  confederate  and  join  together,  nor  was  there  any  antece- 
dent obligation  to  inflict  those  censures  upon  oifenders.  Much 
less,  thirdly,  because  their  jurisdiction  is  not  civil  and  coactive, 
therefore  they  have  none  at  all;  which  is  as  much  as  to  say, 
the  laws  of  scripture  are  not  our  common  laws,  therefore  they 
are  none  at  all, 

§  3,  I  shall  not  here  insist  upon  the  divine  right  of  power 
to  excommunicate  offenders,  founded  upon  the  positive  laws 
of  Christ,  it  being  my  only  business  now  to  show  what  foun- 
dation such  a  power  hath  in  the  law  of  nature,  which  we 
have  seen  doth  follow  upon  the  church's  being  a  distinct 


FOKMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  171 

society  ruled  by  other  laws,  acting  on  other  ends,  subsisting 
upon  different  grounds  from  any  other  society.  A  further 
evidence  we  have  of  this,  how  consonant  it  is  to  the  hght  of 
nature,  from  the  practice  of  all  societies  pretending  to  be  for 
the  worship  of  God,  who  have  looked  upon  this  as  the  proper 
penalty  of  offenders  among  them,  to  be  exchided  out  of  those 
societies.  Thus  we  find  among  the  Druids,  whose  great 
office  was  to  take  care  of  the  worship  of  their  gods,  and  to 
instruct  the  people  in  religion,  as  Csesar^  relates:  "  They  are 
present  at  the  sacred  rites,  take  care  of  the  public  and  private 
sacrifices,  and  expound  the  obligations  and  mysteries  of  re- 
ligion;"2  and  accordingly  the  punishment  of  disobedience 
among  them  was  excommunication  from  their  sacrifices, 
which  they  looked  upon  as  the  greatest  punishment  that 
could  be  inflicted  upon  them,  as  Caesar  at  large  describes  it: 
"If  any  public  or  private  character,  has  not  obeyed  the 
decree,  he  is  interdicted  at  the  sacrifices;  and  they  who  are 
thus  interdicted,  are  accounted  amongst  the  number  of  the 
impious  and  wicked,  from  whom  all  withdraw,  and  whose 
intercourse  all  shun,  lest  they  should  sustain  any  disadvan- 
tage as  from  contagion,  or  that  neither  right  nor  any  honour, 
when  solicited,  should  be  imparted."^ 

The  practice  of  excommunication  among  the  Jews  is  not 
questioned  by  any,  but  the  right  ground  and  original  of  that 
practice,  with  the  eflfect  and  extent  of  it.  Some  conceive  it 
to  have  been  only  taken  up  among  the  Jews,  after  the  power 
of  capital  punishments  was  taken  from  them;  and  that  it  was 
used  by  them,  wholly  upon  a  civil  account,  not  extending  to 
the  exclusion  of  men  from  their  worship  in  the  temple  or 
synagogues,  but  only  to  be  a  note  of  infamy  upon  offending 
persons.  This  opinion,  though  entertained  by  persons  of 
much  skill  and  learning  in  the  Jewish  antiquities,  yet  carries 
not  that  evidence  with  it  to  gain  my  assent  to  it.  For  first, 
the  causes  of  excommunication  were  not  such  as  were  ex- 
pressed b)''  their  law  to  deserve  such  civil  punishments  as 
might  have  been  inflicted  by  them  upon  offenders,  nor  were 

'  Csesar  de  bello  Gallico.  1.  6.  V.  Nicolautn  Damascenum  de  inoribus  gentium 
de  cercetis,  touj  dJixotravTaj  o  now  t<»»  U^im  uTreioyov^iv. 

2  Illi  rebus  divinis  intersunt,  sacrificia  publica  ac  privafa  procurant,  religiones 
interpretantur. 

3  Si  quis  aut  privatus  aut  pubicus  eorum  decreto  non  stetit,  sacrificiis  inter, 
dicunt:  iisec  poena  apud  eos  est  gravissima:  quibus  ita  est  interdictum,  ii  numero 
impiorum  et  sceleratorum  habentur;  lis  omnes  decedunt,  aditum  eorum  sernio- 
nemq;  defugiunt,  ne  quid  ex  contagione  incommodi  accipiant,  neq;  iis  petentibus 
jus  rcdditur,  neq;  honos  uilus  communicatur. 


172  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

they  generally  matters  of  a  civil  nature,  but  matters  of  offence 
and  scandal,  as  will  appear  to  any  that  shall  peruse   the 
twenty-four  causes  of  excommunication,  related  out  of  the 
Jewish  writers  by  Selden}  and  Joh.  Coch.     Such  were  the 
neglecting  the  precepts  of  the  Scribes,  the  vain  pronouncing 
the  name  of  God,  bearing  ivitness  against  a  Jew  before 
heathen  tribunals,  doing  any  common  work  in  the  after- 
noon of  the  day  before  the  Passover,  with  others  of  a  like 
nature.     If  excommunication  had  been  then  taken  up  among 
them  only  ex  confcederatd  disciplind,  to  supply  the  defect  of 
civil  judicatories,  at  least  all  capital  offenders  must  have  lain 
under  the  sentence  of  excommunication.     But  here  we  read 
not  of  any  being  excommunicated  for  those,  but  for  other 
less  matters,  which  were  looked  upon  as  matters  of  scandal 
among  them:  and  though  some  of  them  were  matters  of  civil 
injuries,  yet  it  follows  not  that  men  were  excommunicated  for 
them  as  such,  but  for  the  scandal  which  attended  them.     As, 
in  the  Christian  church,  men  are  excommunicated  for  matters 
which  are  punishable  by  the  civil  magistrate,  but  not  under 
that  notion,  but  as  they  are  offences  to  that  Christian  society 
which  they  live  among.     Secondly,  It  appears  that  excom- 
munication was  not  a  mere  civil  penalty,  because  the  in- 
creasing or  abatement  of  that  penalty  did  depend  upon  the 
person's  repentance    and  desire   of  absolution.     Now  civil 
penalties  do  not  regard  the  intention  and  mind  of  the  per- 
son, but  the   quality  and  desert  of  the  action;   the   reason 
is,  because  human   laws  do   respect  immediately  actionem 
ipsam,  non   animum  agentis,  "  the   action  itself,  and  not 
the  intention  of  the  doer,"  unless  it  be  only  so  far  as  the 
mind  hath  influence  upon  the  action.     But  now  it  is  other- 
wise in  such  laws  which  take  immediate  notice  of  the  inten- 
tion of  the  mind,  and  only  of  outward  actions  as  they  are 
significative  and  expressive  of  the  inward  intention:  for  in 
these,  though  the  ground  of  proceeding  to  penalties  be  from 
the  notice  taken  of  the  outward  action,  yet  that  outward 
action  being  subject  to  penalty,  as  expressive  of  the  mind's 
intention,  where  there  may  be  sufficient  evidence  given  of  the 
integrity  and  uprightness  of  the  intention  afterwards,  there 
may  be  proportionably  a  relaxation  of  the  penalty;  because 
the  end  of  the  penalty  inflicted  was  not  to  be  an  act  of  jus- 
tice excluded  from  mercy  in  the  end  of  administration  as  in 
civil  judicatories,  but  an  act  of  justice  whose  end  was  mercy, 

'  Selden  de  jure  natur.  &c.  1.  4,  cap.  8.    Excerpt.  Gem.  Saub.  pug.  147. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  173 

that  is,  the  regaining  and  recovering  the  offender's  soul  from 
sin,  by  inflicting  such  a  penalty  upon  him,  as  might  humble 
him  under  the  sense  of  it.     Hence  appears  the  great  reason- 
ableness of  their  proceedings  in  the  management  of  discipline 
in  the  primitive  times,  who  did  not  fix  a  certain  time  as  a 
standing  law  for   all  offenders,  but  did  increase  or  lessen 
both  the  time  and  weight  of  their  penance,  according  to  the 
evidences  given  of  their  submission  and  true  repentance  for 
their  miscarriages.     That  it  was  thus  now  in   reference  to 
excommunication   among   the  Jews,  appears  from  what  is 
asserted  by  the  learned  Biixiorf^  concerning  the  time  of  the 
less  excommunication,  called  mu  Niddui,  "depart,  be  sepa 
rated,"  which  remained  thirty  days  usually,  but  were  short- 
ened by  confession  and  desire  of  absolution:  "  It  continues 
thirty  days,  which  may,  however,  be  shortened  by  repentance 
and  prayer."^     But  if  after  thirty  days  past,  he  continue  im- 
penitent, the  judge  as  he  sees  fit,  increaseth  the  punishment, 
so  as  to  double  or  treble  the  time,  or  extend  it  to  his  whole 
life:  if  he  died  without  repentance,  a  stone  is  laid  upon  his 
bier,  to  show  he  deserved  lapidation;  thty  wept  not  for  him, 
nor  buried  him  in  the  common  place  of  burial.     Further, 
Buxtorp  there  allegeth  this  constitution  of  their  law;  that  if 
he  that  was  under  Niddui,  and  desired  not  absolution,  was 
the  second  time  under  it,  if  that  did  no  good  on  him,  then  he 
was  excommunicated  with  the  higher  sort  of  excommunica- 
tion, called  Din  "cut  off,"  which  is  likewise  observed  by  Joh. 
Coch.  Mr.  Selden,  and  others.     From  whence  it  is  evident 
that  this  was  an  ecclesiastical  censure,  and  not  merely  civil, 
because  the  main  end  of  it  was  not  satisfaction  to  the  law,  but 
the  repentance  of  the  person  who  lay  under  the  fault;  and 
according  to  the  evidence  given  of  it,  the  penalty  was  relaxed 
or  increased,  which  argument  not  yet  taken  notice  of  nor 
improved  by  writers  on  this  subject,  seems  to  make  the  case 
clear,  that  excommunication  among  the  Jews  was  not  a  mere 
outlaiv7'y,  as  some  conceive  it  to  have  been. 

§  4,  Thirdly,  I  argue,  if  it  was  not  the  breach  of  the  law, 
but  the  publicity  of  the  offence,  or  the  scandal  of  it  which 
was  the  ground  of  excommunication;  then  it  was  not  a  mere 
civil  penalty,  but  an  ecclesiastical  censure:  for  civil  penalties 
do  proceed  upon  the  breach  of  the  law,  and  alter  not  as  to  the 

'  Epist.  Hebr.  Instilut.  p.  55. 

2  Durat  triginta  dies  qui  tamen  poenilentia  et  deprecatione  dccurtantur. 

3  V.  Selden  de  jure  nut.  &c.  lib.  4,  cap.  8,  p.  516.  Schulcban.  A  ruch  chosen, 
haminischpat.  s.  100.     Excerpt.  Gen.  Sam.  lied.  p.  141,  n.  11,  12. 


174  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

publicity  or  privateness  of  the  offence;  but  here  it  is  evident 
that  the  same  offence  deserving  excommunication  if  done  m 
public,  did  not  if  done  in  private,  or  was  left  at  the  person's 
liberty  to  have  the  offender  excommunicated  or  not.  That 
which  is  reckoned  as  the  first  cause  of  excommunication,  is 
affront  or  contempt  put  upon  a  wise  man,  or  Rabbi,  or  one 
that  was  D3n  -\'rbn  "a  student  in  the  law;"  now  it  is  deter- 
mined by  them  in  this  case,  that  if  it  were  done  in  private,  the 
Rabbi  might  pardon  him:  but  if  in  public,  he  could  not.  For 
as  Joh.  Coch}  gives  the  xea.son, publicum  Doctoris  hidibrium 
in  legis  contemptum  redundas:  "the  contempt  of  public 
teachers  of  the  law,  redounds  to  the  dishonour  of  the  law 
itself"  Thus  it  was  the  scandal  of  the  faull,  and  not  the 
bare  offence  which  made  excommunication  necessary  among 
them;  and  not  as  ^hat  scandal  was  a  mere  defamation  of  the 
person,  but  as  it  redounded  to  the  contempt  of  the  law. 
Fourthly,  I  argue  from  the  form  used  in  excommunication 
by  tliem.  There  are  two  forms  produced  of  their  excommu- 
nications, the  one  by  Buxtorf  out  of  an  old  Hebrew  manu- 
script,^  the  beginning  of  which  is,  "by  the  authority  of  the 
Lord  of  lords,  let  Plonus,  the  son  of  Plonus,  be  an  anathema, 
in  both  houses,  the  higher  and  the  lower  courts  of  judgment,"^ 
where  two  things  evidence,  it  was  accounted  a  sacred  and  no 
civil  action,  doing  it  immediately  in  the  name  and  authority 
of  the  Lord  of  lords;  and  pronouncing  him  excommunicate 
both  in  heaven  and  earth.  So  R.  Elieser,  speaking  of  the 
excommunication  of  the  Cuthites  or  Samaritans,'*  "and  by 
anathema  they  doomed  the  Cuthites,  by  the  mystery  of  the 
name  of  Amphorasch,  and  by  the  words  engraven  on  plates, 
both  by  the  anathema  of  the  higher  and  lower  courts  of  judg- 
ment,"^ as  it  is  translated  by  Giili.  Vorstius,  who  in  his 
notes  upon  that  book  produceth  a  most  dreadful  sentence  of 
excommunication  used  to  this  day  in  many  synagogues, 
which  they  call  Cherem  Col  Bo.  from  the,  book  whence  it  is 
taken,  which  runs  most  solemnly  in  the  several  names  of 
God,''  whereby  they  do  chamatize,  curse  and  devote  the 
persons  against  whom  it  is  pronounced.     Fifthly,  it  appears 

'  P.  146.  2  Lex  Rabbinic,  p.  828. 

3  Ex  sententia.  Domini  Domlnoruin,  sit  in  Anathemate  Plonus  fiiiiis  Ploni,  in 
ntraque  domo  judicii,  superiorum,  scilicet  et  inferiorum,  &c. 

4  Pirk.  R.  Elieser,  c.  38,  p.  101. 

5  Atquc  anathemate  devovebant  Culhifios  mysterio  nominis  Amphorasch,  et 
Scriptura  cxarata  in  tabulis,  et  anathemate  domus  judicii  superioris,  atque 
anathemate  curice  infcrioris. 

6  P.  22G,  ad  230. 


W 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  175 

not  to  be  a  merely  civil  thing  instead  of  civil  power,  because 
they  use  it  against  those  over  whom  they  have  no  civil  juris- 
diction, as  appears  by  their  chamatizing  the  Christians  in 
their  liturgies,  as  Buxtorf  observes.  Sixthly,  I  argue  from 
the  eifects  of  it,  because  they  who  lay  under  it  were  excluded 
from  public  worship,  which  is  averred  by  Buxtorf,  Coch.  and 
others  in  the  places  forecited.  It  is  acknowledged  that  he  that 
was  only  under  Niddui,  might  be  present  at  public  worships 
but  even  there  he  was  under  his  separation  too,  of  four  cubits 
from  any  other  Israelite. 

§  5  And  hence  in  probabihty  might  the  mistake  arise,  be- 
cause those  under  Niddui  might  appear  at  the  temple  or 
synagogue,  therefore  excommunication  was  no  prohibition  d, 
sao'is.^  But  he  that  was  under  Cherem,  non  docei,  non 
doceter,  ''neither  teacheth  others,  nor  is  taught  himself," 
saith  Joh.  Cocceius;  and  Buxtorf  of  one  under  Cherem, 
omninb  h,  ccetu  sacro  excluditur,  "is  altogether  excluded 
from  the  holy  assembly:'-'  and  in  this  sense  Buxtorf^  ex- 
pressly takes  the  turning  out  of  the  synagogue,  ./bA.  9,22; 
12,  42,  which,  saith  he,  is  done  by  Cherem.  But  against  this 
it  is  strongly  pleaded  by  our  learned  Mr.  Selden?  that  putting 
out  of  the  synagogue  is  nothing  else  but  excommunicating 
Snpn  p  Snab  "to  separate  from  the  congregation,"  taking  ^t\'^ 
and  so  odJi/aywyi;  "  Synagogue,"  in  the  civil  and  not  sacred  sense, 
as  it  denotes  an  excluding  them  from  common  society;  but 
though  it  be  freely  granted  that  that  is  sometimes  the  signifi- 
cation of  bnp  and  ODmywy*;  as  Mat.  x.  17,  yet  those  particulars 
being  considered,  which  are  already  laid  down,  I  shall  leave 
it  to  consideration  whether  it  be  more  probable  to  take  the 
word  synagogue  here  in  a  civil  or  sacred  sense;  when  the 
occasion  expressed  is  merely  a  matter  of  doctrine  and  opinion, 
and  not  anything  condemned  by  their  law.  Another  thing 
which  hath  been,  I  believe,  a  great  ground  of  mistaking  in 
this  matter,  is,  that  excluding  from  the  civil  society  among 
them  was  always  consequent  upon  excommunication;  the 
reason  whereof  was,  because  the  church  and  commonwealth 
were  not  distinct  among  the  Jews;  and  the  same  persons  who 
took  care  of  sacred,  did  likewise  of  civil  things,  (there  being 
no  distinct  Sanhedrim  among  them  as  some  imagine:)  but 
from  hence  it  no  ways  follows,  but  their  excommunication 
might    be  an   exclusion   from   sacred    worship    as  well  as 

'  From  sacred  rites.  2  Ep.  institut.  pag.  56. 

3  De  Synedriis,  lib.  1,  cap.  7. 


176  THE  DIVINE   RIGHT  OP 

civil  society.  However,  were  it  as  they  pretend,  that  it  was 
from  civil  commerce,  yet  the  whole  people  of  the  Jews  being 
n'7UD  God's  "  peculiar  people,"  and  his  only  church  in  being 
before  the  times  of  the  gospel,  an  exclusion  in  that  respect 
from  the  common  society  of  them,  might  deservedly  be 
looked  upon  as  a  sacred  action,  and  not  merely  civil,  it  being 
a  separation  from  a  people  whose  main  ligature  was  their 
being  a  church  of  God,  or  a  community  gathered  together 
for  God's  worship  and  service.  Thus  we  see  the  church 
of  the  Jews  had  this  power  among  them;  and  for  the  Chris- 
tian church,  the  practice  of  discipline  upon  offenders  was 
never  questioned,  though  the  right  hath  been;  so  that  from 
hence  we  gather,  in  that  it  hath  been  the  practice  of  societies 
constituted  for  the  worship  of  God,  to  call  offenders  to  an  ac- 
count for  their  offences,  and  if  upon  examination  they  be 
found  guilty,  to  exclude  them  their  society;  that  it  is  a  dictate 
of  the  law  of  nature,  that  every  offender  against  the  laws  of 
a  society  must  give  an  account  of  his  actions  to  the  rulers  of 
it,  and  submit  to  the  censures  inflicted  on  him  by  them.  Thus 
I  am  now  come  to  the  end  of  my  first  stage,  to  show  how  far 
church  govermnent  is  founded  upon  the  law  and  light  of 
nature. 

And  so  to  the  end  of  the  first  part. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  177 


PART  II 


CHAPTER   I. 

The  other  ground  of  divine  right  considered,  viz.  God's  positive  laws;  which 
imply  a  certain  knowledge  of  God's  intention  to  bind  men  perpetually.  As  to 
which,  the  arguments  drawn  from  tradition,  and  the  practice  of  the  church  in 
after  ages,  proved  invalid  by  several  arguments.  In  order  to  a  right  stating 
the  question,  some  concessions  laid  down;  First,  that  tliere  must  be  some  form 
of  government  in  the  church.  The  notion  of  a  church  explained:  whether  it 
belongs  only  to  particular  congregations,  which  are  manifested  not  to  be  of 
God's  primary  intention,  but  for  our  necessity.  Evidence  for  national  churches 
under  the  gospel.     A  national  church  government  necessary. 

§  1.  I  NOW  come  to  the  second  way,  whereby  anything 
comes  to  be  of  unalterable  divine  right,  which  is,  by  the  posi- 
tive laws  of  God,  which  do  bind  universally  to  obedience.  In 
the  entrance  into  this  discourse,  it  is  necessary  to  lay  down  the 
ways,  whereby  we  find  out  a  divine  positive  law  determining 
an  unalterable  obligation:  which  must  be  either  by  express 
words  of  scripture,  or  by  some  other  certain  way,  whereby  to 
gather  from  thence,  that  it  was  God's  intention  to  bind  men. 
For  the  main  thing  requisite  to  make  a  standing  universal 
positive  law,  is  God's  declaring  his  mind,  that  the  thing  in- 
quired into,  should  unalterably  bind  men  to  the  practice  of  it. 
Now  whatever  doth  sufficiently  manifest  God's  intention,  is  a 
medium  to  find  out  such  a  law  by,  and  nothing  else:  but  it 
must  be  such  a  manifestation  as  gives  a  man's  mind  sufficient 
evidence  and  testimony  whereon  to  build  a  true,  certain,  and 
divine  assent  to  the  thing,  as  revealed:  so  that  whatsoever 
binds  the  conscience  as  a  law,  must  first  be  entertained  by 
the  understanding  as  a  matter  of  faith;  not  as  it  imports  some- 
thing merely  doctrinal  and  dogmatical,  but  as  it  implies  the 
matter  of  a  divine  revelation,  and  the  object  of  an  assent 
upon  the  credibility  of  a  testimony.  For  God  having  the 
23 


178  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

only  immediate  authority  over  the  consciences  of  men,  no- 
thing can  bind  immediately  the  conscience  but  a  divine  law, 
neither  can  anytliing  bind  as  such,  but  what  the  understand- 
ing assents  unto,   as  revealed   by   God    himself.     Now   the 
Word  of  God  being  the  only  codex  and  digest  of  divine  laws, 
whatever  law  we  look  for,  must  either  be  found  there  in  ex- 
press terms,  or  at  least  so  couched  therein,  that  every  one  by 
the  exercise  of  his  understanding,  may  by  a  certain  and  easy 
collection,  gather  the  universal  obligation  of  the  thing  inquired 
after.      In   this  case   then,   whatsoever  is  not   immediately 
founded  upon  a  divine  testimony,  carmot  be  made  use  of  as 
a  medium  to  infer  an  universally  binding  law  by:  so  that  all 
traditions  and  historical  evidence  will  be  unserviceable  to  us, 
when  we  inquire  into  God's  intentions  in  binding  men's  con- 
sciences.    Matters  of  fact,  and  mere  apostolical  practice,  may 
I  freely  grant,  receive  much  light  from  the  records  of  succeed- 
ing ages;  but  they  can  never  give  a  man's  understanding 
sufficient  ground  to  infer  any  divine  law,  arising  from  those 
facts  attested  to  be  the  practice  or  records  of  succeeding  ages. 
§  2.  For  Jirst,  The  foundation  and  ground  of  our  assent  in 
this  case,  is  not  the  bare  testimony  of  antiquity;  but  the  assur- 
ance which  we  have,  either  that  their  practice  did  not  vary 
from  what  was  apostolical;  or  in  their  writings,  that  they  could 
not  mistake  concerning  what  they  deliver  unto  us:  and  there- 
fore those  who  would  infer  the  necessary  obligation  of  men 
to  any  form  of  government,  because  that  was  practised  by  the 
apostles,  and  then  prove  the  apostolical  practice  from  that  of 
the  ages  succeeding,  or  from  their  writings,  must  first  of  all 
prove,  that  what  was  done  then,  was  certainly  the  apostles' 
practice,  and  so  prove  the  same  thing  by  itself,  or  that  it  was 
impossible  they  should  vary  from  it,  or  that  they  should  mis- 
take in  judging  of  it:  for  here  something  more  is  required  than 
a  mere  matter  of  fact,  in  which  I  confess  their  nearness  to  the 
apostles'  times  doth  give  them  an  advantage  above  the  ages 
following,  to  discern  what  it  was;  but  such  a  practice  is  re- 
quired, as  infers  an  universal  obligation  upon  all  places,  times, 
and  persons.     Therefore  these  things  must  be  manifested, 
that  such  things  ivere  unquestionably  the  practice  of  those 
ages  and  persons;  that  their  practice  teas  the  same  with  the 
apostles;  that  ivhat  they  did,  luas  not  from  any  prudential 
motives,  but  by  virtue  of  a  law  which  did  bind  them  to  that 
practice.     Which  things  are  easily  passed  over  by  the  most 
eager  disputers  of  the  controversy  about  church  government, 
but  how  necessary  they  are  to  be  proved  before  any  form  of 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  179 

government  be  asserted,  so  necessarj',  that  without  it  there 
can  be  no  true  church,  any  weak  understanding  may  discern. 

Secondly,  Supposing  that  apostohcal  practice  be  sufficiently 
attested  by  the  following  ages,  yet  unless  it  be  cleared  from 
scripture,  that  it  was  God's  intention  that  the  apostles'  actions 
should  continually  bind  the  church,  there  can  be  nothing  in- 
ferred that  doth  concern  us  in  point  of  conscience.  I  say, 
that  though  the  matter  of  fact  be  evidenced  by  posterity,  yet 
the  obligatory  nature  of  that  fact  must  depend  on  scripture: 
and  the  apostles' intentions  must  not  be  built  upon  men's  bare 
surmises,  nor  upon  after  practices,  especially  if  different  from 
the  constitution  of  things  during  the  apostles'  times.  And 
here  those  have  somewhat  whereon  to  exercise  their  under- 
standings, who  assert  an  obligation  upon  men  to  any  form  of 
government,  by  virtue  of  an  apostolical  practice;  which  must 
of  necessity  suppose  a  different  state  of  things  from  what  they 
were  when  the  apostles  first  established  governors  over 
churches.  As  how  those  who  were  appointed  governors 
over  particular  congregations  by  the  apostles,  come  to  be  by 
virtue  of  that  ordination,  governors  over  many  congregations 
of  like  nature  and  extent  with  that  over  which  they  were  set: 
and  whether,  if  it  were  the  apostles'  intention  that  such  gov- 
ernors should  be  always  in  the  church,  is  it  not  necessary  that 
that  intention  of  theirs  be  declared  by  a  standing  law,  that 
such  there  must  be,  for  here  matter  of  fact  and  practice  can  be 
no  evidence,  when  it  is  supposed  to  be  different  from  the  con- 
stitution of  churches  afterwards:  but  of  this  more  hereafter. 

Thirdly,  Supposing  any  form  of  government  in  itself  ne- 
cessary, and  that  necessity  not  determined  by  a  law  in  the 
word  of  God,  the  scripture  is  thereby  apparently  argued  to 
be  insufficient  for  its  end;  for  then  deficit  in  necessariis,  "is 
deficient  in  necessary  matters;"  some  things  are  necessary  for 
the  church  of  God  which  the  scripture  is  wholly  silent  in.  I 
say  not,  that  every  thing  about  church  government  must  be 
written  in  scripture;  but  supposing  any  one  form  necessary, 
it  must  be  there  commanded,  or  the  scripture  is  an  imperfect 
rule,  which  contains  not  all  things  necessary  by  way  of  pre- 
cept: for  there  can  be  no  other  necessity  universal,  but  either 
by  way  of  Tneans  to  an  end,  or  by  way  of  divine  command. 
I  know  none  will  say,  that  any  particular  form  of  govern- 
ment is  necessary  absolutely,  by  way  of  means  to  an  end;  for 
certainly,  supposing  no  obligation  from  scripture,  government 
by  an  equality  of  power  in  the  officers  of  the  church,  or  by 
superiority  of  one  order  above  another,  is  indifferent  in  order 


180  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

to  the  general  ends  of  government,  and  one  not  more  neces- 
sary than  the  other.  If  any  one  form  then  be  necessary,  it 
must  be  by  that  of  command;  and  if  there  be  a  command 
universally  binding,  whose  footsteps  cannot  be  traced  in  the 
word  of  God,  how  can  the  scriptures  be  a  perfect  rule,  if  it 
fails  in  determining  binding  laws?  So  that  we  must,  if  we  own 
the  scripture's  sufficiency  as  a  binding  rule,  appeal  to  that 
about  anything  pleaded  as  necessary,  by  virtue  of  any  divine 
command:  and  if  such  a  law  cannot  be  met  with  in  scripture, 
which  determines  the  case  in  hand  one  way  or  other  by  way 
of  necessary  obligation,  I  have  ground  to  look  upon  that 
which  is  thus  left  undetermined  by  God's  positive  laws,  to  be 
a  matter  of  Christian  liberty;  and  that  neither  part  is  to  be 
looked  upon  as  necessary  for  the  church  of  God,  as  exclusive 
of  the  other. 

§  3,  This  I  suppose  is  the  case,  as  to  particular  forms  of 
government  in  the  church  of  God:  but  that  I  may  not  only 
suppose  but  prove  it,  I  now  come  to  the  stating  of  the  ques- 
tion, which  if  ever  necessary  to  be  done  anywhere,  it  is  in  the 
controversy  of  church  government,  the  most  of  men's  heats 
in  this  matter  arising  from  want  of  right  understanding  the 
thing  in  question  between  them.     In  the  stating  the  question, 
I  shall  proceed  by  degrees,  and  show  how  far  we  acknow- 
ledge anything  belonging  to  government  in  the  church  to  be 
of  an  unalterable  divine  right.     First,  That  there  must  be  a 
form  of  government  in  the  church  of  God,  is  necessary  by 
virtue,  not  only  of  that  law  of  nature  which  provides  for  the 
preservation  of  societies,  but  likewise  by  virtue  of  that  divine 
law,  which  takes  care  for  the  church's  preservation  in  peace 
and  unity.     I  engage  not  here  in  the  controversy,  whether  a 
particular  congregation  be  the  first  political  church  or  not;  it 
sufficeth  for  my  purpose,  that  there  are  other  churches  besides 
particular  congregations :    I   mean,  not  only   the    Catholic 
visible  church,  which  is  the  first,  not  only  in  order  of  consi- 
deration, but  nature  too,  as  a  totum  integrate,  "an  integral 
whole,"  before  the  similar  parts  of  it,  but  in  respect  of  all 
other  accidental  modifications  of  churches,  from  the  several 
ways  of  their  combination   together.     They  who  define   a 
church  by  stated  worshipping  congregations,  do  handsomely, 
as  logicians  say,  "beg  the  question,"  i.  e.  beg  to  be  granted 
what   they  desire,  by  placing  that  in   their  definition  of  a 
church,  which  is  the  thing  in  question:  which  is,  whether 
there  be  no  other  church  but  such  particular  congregations? 
Which  is  as  if  one  should  go  about  to  prove,  that  there  were 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  181 

no  civil  societies  but  in  particular  corporations,  and  to  prove 
it,  should  give  such  a  definition  of  civil  society,  that  it  is,  a 
company  of  men  joined  together  in  a  corporation,  for  the  pre- 
servation of  their  rights  and  privileges,  under  the  governors 
of  such  a  place.  It  must  be  first  proved,  that  no  other  com- 
pany of  men  can  be  called  a  civil  society  besides  a  corpora- 
tion: and  so  that  no  other  society  of  men  joining  together  in 
the  profession  of  the  true  religion,  can  be  called  a  church,  but 
such  as  join  in  particular  congregations. 

§  4.  To  which  purpose  it  is  very  observable,  that  particular 
congregations  are  not  de primarid  intentione  divind,  "of  the 
primary  divine  intention,"  for  if  the  whole  world  could  join 
together  in  the  public  worship  of  God,  no  doubt  that  would  be 
most  properly  a  church,  but  particular  congregations  are  only 
accidental,  in  reference  to  God's  intention  of  having  a  church, 
because  of  the  impossibility  of  all  men's  joining  together  for 
the  convenient  distribution  of  church  privileges,  and  adminis- 
tration of  gospel  ordinances.     For  it  is  evident,  that  the  pri- 
vileges and  ordinances,  do  immediately  and  primarily  belong 
to  the  catholic  visible  church,  in  which  Christ  to  that  end  hath 
set  officers,  as  the  apostle  clearly  expresseth,  1  Corinth,  xii. 
28,  (for  how  apostles  should  be  set  as  officers  over  particular 
congregations,   whose    commission   extended   to   the   whole 
world,  is,  I  think,  somewhat  hard  to  understand,)  but  for  the 
more  convenient  participation  of  privileges  and  ordinances, 
particular  congregations  are  necessary.     This   will   be   best 
illustrated  by  examples.     We  read,  [Esther  i.  3,)  that  King 
Jihasuerus  made  a  feast  for  all  his  princes  and   servants. 
Doubtless  the  king  did  equally  respect  them  all  as  a  body  in 
the  feasting  of  them,  and  did  bestow  his  entertainment  upon 
them  all  as  considered  together;  but  by  reason  of  the  great 
multitude  of  them,  it  was  impossible  that  they  should  all  be 
feasted  together  in  the  same  room;  and  therefore  for  more 
convenient  participation  of  the  king's  bounty,  it  was  neces- 
sary to  divide  themselves  into  particular  companies,  and  to 
associate  as  many  as  conveniently  could  in  order  to  that  end. 
So  it  is  in  the  church,  Christ  in  donation  of  privileges  equally 
respects  the  whole  church;  but  because  men  cannot  all  meet 
together  to  participate  of  these  privileges,  a  more  particular 
distribution  was  necessary  for  that  end.   But  a  clearer  example 
of  this  kind  we  have  yet  in  scripture,  which  is,  Mark  vi.  39, 
in  our  Saviour's  feeding  the  multitude  with  five  loaves  and 
two  fishes;  where  we  see  our  Saviour's  primary  intention 
was  to  feed  the  whole  multitude,  bnt  for  their  more  convenient 


1S2  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

partaking  of  this  food,  our  Saviour  commands  them  to  sit 
down  avfiTtogia,  GvnTibdM,  "hy  companies,"  according  to  the 
Hebraism  of  ingeminating  the  words,  to  note  the  distribution 
of  them,  and  therefore  tlie  Vulg.  Lat.  renders  it  secundum 
contuberniu,  "by  tent-fellowship,  or  companies,"  that  is  6ia- 
fisfiE^isfisvQi,  "distributed  among  themselves,"  as  Curnerarhis 
expounds  it,  according  to  so  many  companies  and  divisions 
as  might  conveniently  sit  together,  as  at  a  table;  where  we 
plainly  see  this  distribution  was  only  accidental,  as  to  Christ's 
primary  intention  of  feeding  the  multitude,  and  was  only  ne- 
cessary for  their  own  convenience.  Thus  the  case  is  evident, 
as  to  the  church  of  God,  it  is  our  necessity  and  convenience 
which  makes  several  congregations  of  the  catholic  visible 
church,  and  not  God's  primary  intention,  when  he  bestowed 
such  privileges  upon  the  church,  that  it  should  be  understood 
of  particular  congregations, 

§  5,  If  then  particular  congregations  be  only  accidental  for 
our  convenience,  it  evidently  follows  that  the  primary  notion 
of  a  church  doth  not  belong  to  these;  nor  that  these  are  the 
first  subject  of  government  which  belongs  to  a  church  as 
such,  and  not  as  crumbled  into  particular  congregations; 
although  the  actual  exercise  of  government  be  most  visible 
and  discernible  there;  because  the  joining  together  for  par- 
ticipation of  gospel  ordinances  must  be  in  some  particular 
company  or  other  associated  together  for  that  end,  Where- 
ever  then  we  find  the  notion  of  a  church  particular,  there 
must  be  government  in  that  church;  and  why  a  national 
society  incorporated  into  one  civil  government,  joining  in  the 
profession  of  Christianity,  and  having  a  right  thereby  to  par- 
ticipate of  gospel  ordinances  in  the  convenient  distributions 
of  them  into  particular  congregations,  should  not  be  called  a 
church;  I  confess  1  can  see  no  reason.  The  main  thing  ob- 
jected against  it,  is,  that  a  churcli  implies  an  actual  joining 
together  for  participation  of  all  gospel  ordinances;  but  as  this, 
as  I  said  before,  is  only  a  begging  the  question,  so  I  say  now, 
that  actual  communion  with  any  particular  congregation,  is 
not  absolutely  necessary  to  a  member  of  a  church;  for  sup- 
posing one  baptized  at  sea,  where  no  settled  congregation  is, 
(nor  any  more  society  than  that  which  Aristotle  calls  tfu^rtxota, 
"voyage  fellowship,")  yet  such  a  one  is  thereby  a  member  of 
the  church  of  God,  though  not  of  any  congregation;  so  likewise 
a  church  then  may  consist  of  such  as  have  a  right  to  ordinances, 
without  the  inserting  their  actual  participation  of  them  in  fixed 
congregations.    A  particular  church  then  I  would  define  thus: 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  183 

That  it  is,  a  society  of  men  joining  together  in  the  visible  pro- 
fession of  the  true  faith;  having  a  right  to,  and  enjoying 
among  themselves  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel.  That  a 
whole  nation  professing  Christianity,  in  which  the  ordinances 
of  the  gospel  are  duly  administered  in  particular  congrega- 
tions, is  such  a  society,  is  plain  and  evident.  A  clear  in- 
stance of  such  a  national  constitution  of  a  church  under  the 
gospel,  we  have  in  the  prophecy  of  the  conversion  of  Egypt 
and  Assyria  in  gospel  times.  Isaiah  xix.  19,  21,  24,  25.  W^e 
have  EgypVs  professing  the  true  faith,  and  enjoying  gos- 
pel ordinances,  verse  19,  21,  which,  according  to  the  pro- 
phetical style  are  set  down  under  the  representation  of  such 
things  as  were  then  in  use  among  the  Jews;  by  an  altar 
in  the  midst  of  the  land,  verse  19.  The  altar  noting  the 
true  worship  of  God;  and  being  in  the  midst  of  the  land,  the 
universal  owning  of  this  v/orship  by  all  the  people  of  the 
land.  God  owns  them  for  a  church,  verse  25.  Whom  the 
Lord  of  hosts  shall  bless,  saying,  Blessed  be  Egypt  my 
people.  The  very  name  whereby  Israel  was  called  while  it 
was  a  church;  'n;r,  "ammi,"  Hosea  ii.  I.     And  when  God 

unchurched  them,  it  was  under  this  name,  'd;? n'?,  "Lo- 

Amnii,  ye  are  not  my  people."  As  much  then  as  Israel  was 
a  church  when  God  owned  it  for  his  people:  so  should  Egypt 
be  upon  their  conversion  to  the  faith  of  Christ,  which  was 
done  upon  Mark''s  preaching  at  Mexandria  not  long  after 
the  death  of  Christ. 

§  6.  This  then  we  have  now  briefly  cleared,  that  a  nation 
joining  in  profession  of  Christianity,  is  a  true  church  of  God: 
whence  it  evidently  follows,  that  there  must  be  a  form  of 
ecclesiastical  government  over  a  nation  as  a  church,  as  well 
as  of  civil  government,  over  it,  as  a  society  governed  by  the 
same  laws.  Therefore  some  make  this  necessary  to  a  na- 
tional church,  7iational  union  in  one  ecclesiastical  body  in 
the  same  community  of  ecclesiastical  government.^  For 
every  society  must  have  its  government  belonging  to  it  as 
such  a  society,  and  the  same  reason  that  makes  government 
I'.ecessary  in  any  particular  congregation,  will  make  it  neces- 
sary for  all  the  particular  congregations  joining  together  in 
one  visible  society  as  a  particular  national  church.  For  the 
unity  and  peace  of  that  church,  ought  much  more  to  be 
looked  after  than  of  any  one  particular  congregation,  inas- 
much as  the  peace  of  all  the  particular  combinations  of  men 

'  Hudson  of  the  Church,  cap.  1,  sect.  3. 


184  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

for  participation  of  ordinances  doth  depend  upon,  and  is 
comprehended  in  the  peace  of  the  whole..  But  though  I  say 
from  hence  that  some  form  of  pubUc  government  by  the 
subordination  of  particular  assemblies  to  the  government  of 
the  whole  body  of  them  is  necessary,  yet  I  am  far  from 
asserting  the  necessity  of  any  one  form  of  that  government, 
much  more,  from  saying  that  no  national  church  can  subsist 
without  one  national  officer,  as  the  high-priest  under  the  law, 
or  one  national  place  of  worship,  as  the  temple  was.  The 
want  of  considering  of  which,  viz.  that  national  churches 
may  subsist  without  that  form  of  them  under  the  Jews,  is 
doubtless  the  great  ground  of  men's  quarrelling  against  them; 
but  with  what  reason,  let  men  impartially  judge.  This  then 
we  agree,  that  some  form  of  government  is  necessary  in  every 
particular  church,  and  so  that  government  in  the  church  of 
divine  and  unalterable  right;  and  that  not  only  of  particular 
congregations,  but  of  all  societies  which  may  be  called 
churches,  whether  provincial  or  national. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  185 


CHAPTER   II. 

Tlic  second  concession  is,  that  churcii  government  formally  considered,  must  be 
administered  by  officers  of  divine  appointment.  To  that  end,  the  continuance 
of  a  Gospel  ministry  fully  cleared  from  all  those  arguments,  by  which  posi- 
tive laws  are  proved  immutable.  The  reason  of  the  appointment  of  it  con- 
tinues; the  dream  as  to  a  seculum  spiritHs  sancti  discussed,  first  broached  by 
the  Mendicant  Friars.  Its  occasion  and  unreasonableness  shown.  God's  de- 
claring the  perpetuity  of  a  Gospel  ministry,  Matth.  xxviii.  19,  explained.  A 
novel  interpretation  largely  refuted.  The  world  to  come,  what.  A  ministry 
necessary  for  the  church's  continuance,  Ephes.  iv.  12,  explained  and  vindi- 
cated. 

§  1.  Secondly,  that  the  government  of  the  church  ought 
to  be  administered  by  officers  of  divine  appointment,  is 
another  thing  I  will  yield  to  be  of  divine  right;  but  the 
church  here  I  take  not  in  that  latitude  which  I  did  in  the 
former  concession,  but  I  take  it  chiefly  here  for  the  members 
of  the  church,  as  distinct  from  officers,  as  it  is  taken  in  ^cts 
XV.  22.  So  that  my  meaning  is,  that  there  must  be  a  standing 
perpetual  ministry  in  the  church  of  God,  whose  care  and 
employment  must  be,  to  oversee  and  govern  the  people  of 
God,  and  to  administer  gospel  ordinances  among  them,  and 
this  is  of  divine  and  perpetual  right.  That  officers  were  ap- 
pointed by  Christ  in  the  church  for  these  ends  at  first,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  direct  affirmation  of  scripture,  God  hath  set  in 
the  chio'ch,  first  apostles,  secondly  prophets,  thirdly  teachers, 
S)-c.  1  Corinth,  xii.  28;  Eph.  v.  8,  11,  and  other  places  to  the 
same  purpose.  This  being  then  a  thing  acknowledged,  that 
they  were  at  first  of  divine  institution,  and  so  were  appointed 
by  a  divine  positive  law,  which  herein  determines  and  re- 
strains the  law  of  nature,  (which  doth  not  prescribe  the  cer- 
tain qualifications  of  the  persons  to  govern  this  society,  nor 
the  instalment  or  admission  of  them  into  this  employment, 
viz.  by  ordination.)  The  only  inquiry  then  left  is.  Whether 
a  standing  gospel  ministry  be  such  a  positive  law,  as  is  to 
24 


156  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

remain  perpetually  in  the  church,  or  not?  which  I  shall  make 
appear  by  those  things  which  I  laid  down  in  the  entrance  of 
this  treatise,  as  the  notes  whereby  to  know  when  positive 
laws  are  unalterable. 

§  2.  The  first  was,  when  the  same  reason  of  the  command 
continues  still;  and  what  reason  is  there  why  Christ  should 
appoint  officers  to  rule  his  church  then,  which  will  not  hold 
now?  Did  the  people  of  God  need  ministers  then  to  be  as 
Stars,^  (as  they  are  called  in  scripture,)  to  lead  them  unto 
Christ,  and  do  they  not  as  well  need  them  now?  Had  people 
need  of  guides  then,^  when  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel  luas 
confirmed  to  them  by  miracles^  and  have  they  not  much 
more  now?  Must  there  be  some  then  to  oppose  gainsayers,^ 
and  must  they  have  an  absolute  liberty  of  prophesying  now, 
when  it  is  foretold  what  times  of  seduction  the  last  shall  be?^ 
Must  there  be  some  then  to  rule  over  their  charge,  as  they 
that  must  give  an  account,^  and  is  not  the  same  required  still? 
Were  there  some  then  to  reprove,  rebuke,  exhort,  to  preach 
in  season,  out  of  season,'^  and  is  there  not  the  same  necessity 
of  these  things  still?  Was  it  not  enough  then,  that  there 
were  so  many  in  all  churches  that  had  extraordinary  gifts  of 
tongues,  pj'ophesying,  praying,  interpretation  of  tongues,^ 
but  besides  those  there  were  some  pastors  by  office,  whose 
duty  it  was  to  give  attendance  to  reading,  to  be  wholly  in 
these  things;'^  and  now  when  these  extraordinary  gifts  are 
ceased,  is  not  there  a  much  greater  necessity  than  there  was 
then,  for  some  to  be  set  apart  and  wholly  designed  for  this 
work?  Were  ordinances  only  then  administered  by  those 
whom  Christ  co?7imissio)ied,^°  and  such  as  derived  their  au- 
thority from  them;  and  what  reason  is  there  that  men  should 
arrogate  and  take  this  employment  upon  themselves  now? 
If  Christ  had  so  pleased,  could  he  not  have  left  it  wholly  at 
liberty  for  all  believers  to  have  gone  about  preaching  the 
gospel?  or  why  did  he  make  choice  of  twelve  apostles  chiefly 
for  that  work,  were  it  not  his  will  to  have  some  particularly 
to  dispense  the  gospel?  and  if  Christ  did  then  separate  some 
for  that  work,  what  reason  is  there  why  that  office  should  be 
thrown  common  now,  which  Christ  himself  enclosed  by  his 
own  appointment? 

1  Rev.  i.  16.  2Heb.  xiii.  7. 

3  Heb.  ii.  3.  ■»  Titus  i.  9. 

5  2  Tim.  iii.  1.  6  Heb.  xiii.  17. 

7  2  Tim.  iv.  2.  «  Cor.  xiv. 

9  1  Tim.  iv.  13.  'o  Matlh.  xxviii.  18. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  "  187 

§  3.  There  can  be  no  possible  reason  imagined,  why  a 
gospel  ministry  should  not  continue  still,  unless  it  be  that 
fanatic  pretence  oi  secuhim  spiriius  sancti,"a.n  over-strained^ 
view  of  a  dispensation  of  the  spirit,"  which  dispenses  with 
the  use  of  all  means  of  instruction,  and  gospel  ordinances; 
which  pretence  is  not  so  novel  as  most  imagine;  for  setting 
aside  the  montanistical  spirit  in  the  primitive  times,  which 
acted  upon  principles  much  of  the  same  nature  with  these  we 
now  speak  of:  the  first  rise  of  this  ignis  fatuus  was  from  the 
bogs  of  popery,  viz.  from  the  orders  of  the  Domhiicans  and 
Franciscans,  about  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century.  For  no 
sooner  did  the patiperes  de  Lugdtmo,ihe  "paupers  of  Lyons," 
called  so  in  derision,  or  the  Waldenses  appear,  making  use  of 
the  word  of  God  to  confute  the  whole  army  of  popish  tradi- 
tions, but  the  Dominicans  and  Franciscans  finding  themselves 
worsted  at  every  turn  while  they  disputed  that  ground,  found 
out  a  stratagem  whereby  to  recover  their  own  credit,  and  to 
beat  their  adversaries  quite  out  of  the  field.     Which  was, 
that  the  gospel  which  the  Waldenses^  adhered  to  so  much, 
was  now  out  of  date,  and  instead  of  that  the  friars  broached 
another  gospel  out  of  the  writings  of  the  Abbot  Joachim,  and 
CyriVs  visions,  which  they  blasphemously  named  Evange- 
lium  spiritus  sancti,  "  the  gospel  of  the  holy  spirit,"  Evan- 
gelium  novum,  "  the  new  gospel,"  and  Evangelium  xter- 
num,  "  the  eternal  gospel,"  as  Gulielmus  de  Sancto  Amore, 
their  great  antagonist,  relates  in  his  book  de  periculis  noviss. 
temporum,  "  on  the  dangers  of  the  late  times,"  purposely 
designed  against  the  impostures  of  the  mendicant  friars,  who 
then  like  locusts,  rose  in  multitudes  with  their  shaven  crowns 
out  of  the  bottomless  pit.     This  gospel  of  the  spirit  they  so 
much  magnified  above  the  gospel  of  Christ,  that  the  same 
author  relates  these  words  of  theirs  concerning  it;^  "  that  it 
exceeded  it  as  much  as  the  kernel  doth  the  shell,  or  the  light 
of  the  sun  doth  that  of  the  moon."     We  see  then  from  what 
quarter  of  the  world  this  new  light  began  to  rise:  but  so  much 
for  this  digression.     To  the  thing  itself. 

§  4.  If  there  be  such  a  dispensation  of  the  spirit  which  takes 
away  the  use  of  the  ministry  and  ordinances,  it  did  either 

'  To  the  neglect  of  the  word  of  God,  and  an  ignorance  of  the  nature  of  man, 
who  is  one  party  in  the  covenant. 

2  Matthajus  Paris,  hist.  Angl.  in  Hen.  3.  A.  1257,  p.  939.     Ed.  Vatsii,  cap.  8, 
apud.  Balseuni.  App.  de  vit.  Pontif.  p.  480. 

3  Quod  coraparatum  ad  cvangeUiim  Chrisli,  tanto  plus  perfectionis  ac  dignita- 
tis habet,  quantum  sol  ad  lunam  comparatus,  aut  ad  nucleum  testa." 


188  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

commence  from  the  time  of  the  effusion  of  the  spirit  upon  the 
apostles,  or  some  time  since.  Not  then;  for  even  of  those  who 
had  the  most  large  portion  of  the  spirit  poured  upon  them, 
we  read  that  they  continued  in  all  gospel  ordinances,  Jicts  ii. 
42,  and  amongst  the  chief,  tri  hiha-xn  t^^v  Artos-oxwv,  under  the 
apostles^  ministry,  it  may  be  better  rendered  than  in  the 
apostles^  doctrine.  And  which  is  most  observable,  the  pro- 
phecy of  t/oe/ about  the  spirit,  is  then  said  to  be  fulfilled,  .^c/* 
ii.  17.  Besides,  if  either  that  place  of  Joel,  or  that  of  Jere- 
miah, cited  Heb.  viii.  11,  or  the  unction  of  the  spirit,  1  John 
ii.  20,  27,  did  take  away  the  use  of  preaching,  hov/  did  the 
apostles  themselves  understand  their  meaning,  when  they 
were  so  diligent  in  preaching  and  instructing  others.  John 
writes  to  those,  "/o  try  the  spirits,''^  of  whom  he  saith,  ^'they 
have  an  unction  to  knoiv  all  things:''^  and  those  to  whom  the 
apostle  writes,  that  "they  need  not  teach  every  one  his  neigh- 
bor;''' of  them  he  saith,  "that  they  had  need  to  he  taught  the 
first  principles  of  the  oracles  of  God.'^^  And  even  in  that 
very  chapter  where  he  seems  to  say,  they  that  are  under  the 
new  covenant,  need  not  be  taught,  he  brings  that  very  speech 
in  as  an  argument,  that  the  old  dispensation  of  the  law  was 
done  away:  and  so  goes  about  to  teach,  when  he  seems  to 
take  aivay  the  use  of  it.  These  speeches  then  must  not  be 
understood  in  their  absolute  and  literal  sense,  but  with  a  re- 
flection upon,  and  comparison  with,  the  state  of  things  in  the 
times  wherein  those  prophecies  were  uttered.  For  God,  to 
heighten  the  Jeivs'  apprehensions  of  the  great  blessings  of  the 
gospel,  doth  set  them  forth  under  a  kind  of  hyperbolical  ex- 
pressions,"* that  the  dull  capacity  of  the  Jews  might  at  least 
apprehend  the  just  weight  and  magnitude  of  them,  which  they 
would  not  otherwise  have  done.  So  in  the  place  oi  Jeremiah,^ 
God  to  make  them  understand  how  much  the  knowledge  of 
the  gospel  exceeded  that  under  the  law,  doth  as  it  were  set  it 
down  in  this  hyperbolical  way,  that  it  will  exceed  it  as  much, 
as  one  that  needs  no  teaching  at  all,  doth  one  that  is  yet  but 
in  his  rudiments  of  learning.  So  that  the  place  doth  not  deny 
the  use  of  teaching  under  the  gospel,  but  because  teaching 
doth  commonly  suppose  ignorance,  to  show  the  great  measure 
of  knowledge,  he  doth  it  in  that  way,  as  though  the  know-  j^ 
ledge  should  be  so  great,  that  men  should  not  need  be  taught  in 

'  1  John  iv.  1.  2  1  John  ii.  20. 

3  Hcl).  V.  12.  4  Calvin  in  Joel  ii.  28. 

"  Jcr.  xxxi.  .SI. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  1S9 

such  a  way  of  rudiments  as  the  Jeivs  were,  viz.  by  types  and 
ceremonies,  and  such  things.  We  see  then  no  such  dispensa- 
tion was  in  the  apostles'  times;  for  the  same  apostle  after  this, 
in  chapter  x.  25,  bids  them  "7zo/  to  forsake  the  assembling 
themselves  together  as  some  didf^  wherefore  were  these 
assembhes,  but  for  instruction?  and  in  the  last  chapter,  '-'■bids 
them  obey  their  rulers.''^'^  What  need  rulers,  if  no  need  of 
teaching?  But  so  senseless  a  dream  will  be  too  much  lionoured 
with  any  longer  confutation.  In  the  apostles'  times,  then, 
there  was  no  such  dispensation  of  the  spirit,  which  did  take 
away  the  use  of  ministry  and  ordinances.  If  it  be  expected 
since  their  times,  I  would  know  whence  it  appears,  that  any 
have  a  greater  measure  of  the  spirit  than  was  poured  out  in 
the  apostles'  times;  for  then  the  ministry  was  joined  with  the 
spirit:  and  what  prophecies  are  fulfilled  now,  which  were  not 
then?  Or  if  they  pretend  to  a  doctrine  distinct  from,  and 
above,  what  the  apostles  taught,  let  them  produce  their  evi- 
dences, and  work  those  miracles  which  may  induce  men  to 
believe  them.  Or  let  them  show  what  obligation  any  have 
to  believe  preiended  new  revelations,  witliout  a  power  of 
miracles,  attesting  that  those  revelations  come  from  God?  Or 
whereon  men  must  build  their  faith,  if  it  be  left  to  the  dictates 
of  a  pretended  spirit  of  revelation?  Or  what  way  is  left  to 
discern  the  good  spirit  from  the  bad,  in  its  actings  upon  men's 
minds,  if  the  word  of  God  be  not  our  rule  still?  Or  iiow  God 
is  said  to  have  spoken  "m  the  last  days  by  his  son,^^^  if  a 
further  speaking  be  yet  expected?  For  the  gospel  dispensa- 
tion is  therefore  called  the  last  days,  because  no  other  is  to 
be  expected:  times  being  ditferenced  in  scripture  according 
to  God's  ways  of  revealing  himself  to  men.  But  so  much  for 
this. 

§  5.  The  second  way  whereby  to  know  when  positive  laws 
are  unalterable,  is  when  God  hath  declared  that  such  laws 
shall  bind  still.  Two  ways  whereby  God  doth  express  his 
own  will  concerning  the  perpetuity  of  an  office  founded  on 
his  own  institution.  First,  If  such  things  be  the  work  be- 
longing to  it,  which  are  of  necessary  and  perpetual  use.  .S'e- 
condly,  If  God  hath  promised  to  assist  them  in  it  perpetually, 
in  the  doing  of  their  work.  First,  the  object  of  the  ministerial 
office  are  such  things  which  are  of  necessary  and  perpetual 
use;  I  mean  the  administration  of  gospel  ordinances;  viz.  the 

•  Heb.  X.  25.  2  Heb.  xiii.  7.  ^  Heb.  i.  1. 


190  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

word  and  sacraments,  which  were  appointed  by  Christ  for  a 
perpetual  use.  The  word  as  a  means  of  conversion  and 
edification;  the  sacraments  not  only  as  notes  of  distinction  of 
professors  of  the  true  faith  from  others,  but  as  seals  to  confirm 
the  truth  of  the  covenant  on  God's  part  towards  us,  and  as 
instruments  to  convey  the  blessings  sealed  in  the  covenant  to 
the  hearts  of  believers.  Now  the  very  nature  of  these  things 
doth  imply  their  perpetuity  and  continuance  in  the  world,  as 
long  as  there  shall  be  any  church  of  God  in  it.  For  these 
things  are  not  typi  rerum  futurarum  only,  "  ceremonies  or 
types  to  represent  things  to  come,"  but  they  are  symbola 
rerum  invisibilium,  "signs  to  represent  to  our  senses  things 
invisible"  in  their  own  nature:  and  between  these  two  there 
is  a  great  difference,  as  to  the  perpetuity  of  them:  for  types  of 
things  to  come,  must  of  necessity  expire  when  the  thing  typified 
appears;  but  representation  of  invisible  things  cannot  expire  on 
that  account,  because  the  thing  represented  being  invisible,  can- 
not be  supposed  to  be  made  visible,  and  so  to  dispense  with 
the  use  of  the  signs  which  represent  them  to  us.  Types  re- 
present a  thing  which  is  at  present  invisible;  but  under  the 
notion  of  it  as  future.  Symbols  represent  a  thing  at  present 
invisible,  but  as  present;  and  therefore  symbols  are  designed 
by  God's  institution  for  a  perpetual  help  to  the  weakness  of 
our  faith.  And  therefore  the  Lord's  supper  is  appointed  to 
set  forth  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come;^  whereby  the  con- 
tinuance of  it  in  the  church  of  God  is  necessarily  implied. 
Now  then,  if  these  things  which  are  the  proper  object  of  the 
ministerial  function  be  of  a  perpetual  nature,  when  these 
things  are  declared  to  be  of  an  abiding  nature,  it  necessarily 
follows,  that  that  function  to  which  it  belongs  to  administer 
these  things,  must  be  of  a  perpetual  nature. 

§  6.  Especially  if  we  consider  in  the  second  place,  that 
Christ  hath  promised  to  be  with  them  continually  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  these  things:  for  that,  notwithstanding  the 
dust  lately  thrown  upon  it,  we  have  a  clear  place,  Matth. 
xxviii.  19.  Go  teach  and  baptize^  SfC.,  Lo  I  am  luith  you 
ahvays,  to  the  end  of  the  ivorld.  If  ^atfaj  r-aj  ij^s^aj,  "  all 
days,  or  always,"  did  not  signify  perpetuity,  yet  certainly  the 
latter  words  do;  for  how  could  Christ  otherwise  be  with  the 
apostles  themselves  personally  to  the  end  of  the  world?  He 
must  be  therefore  with  them,  and  all  that  succeed  them  in  the 
office  of  teaching  and  baptizing,  to  the  world's  end:  for  that  I 

1  I  Cor.  xi.  26, 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  191 

assert  lo  be  the  meaning  of  jwf  tT^  gvtt-Knas  tov  aiuvos.  1  insist 
not  barely  on  the  signification  of  the  word  aiuv,^  either  as  to 
its  supposed  etymology,  or  as  it  answers  the  Hebrew  di)};^ 
knowing  how  fallible  the  arguments  drawn  from  thence  are, 
when  in  the  dispute  of  the  eternity  of  the  law  of  Moses  with 
the  Jews,  it  is  confessed  that  dSi;^  relates  only  to  a  long  con- 
tinuance of  time.  But  however,  I  suppose  that  it  will  hardly 
be  found  in  scripture,  that  either  aicov  or  D'l)},^  doth  barely  relate 
to  the  time  of  life  of  any  individual  persons,  especially,  if 
absolutely  put  as  it  is  here.  One  great  signification  of  aiuv  in 
the  New  Testament,  (which  we  are  to  inquire  into,  and  not 
how  it  is  used  among  Greek  authors,)  is  that  wherein  aiuv  is 
taken  for  the  world  itself,  which  Vo7'stius  reckons  among  the 
Hebraisms  of  the  New  Testament,^  in  which  sense  the  Jews 
call  God  oSij^n  3i  "  the  great  eternal,"  and  great  persons  ih\^r\ 
^h^^^  Magnates  mundi,  "  the  great  ones  of  the  earth,"  in 
which  sense,  in  the  New  Testament,  the  devil  is  called  6  a^x^^ 
-toy  avavoi  tovtov,  "the  priucc  of  tliis  world,"  John  xii.  31. — 
xiv.  30,  and  6  Osoi  'tov  aiuvoi  'tovtov,  "  the  god  of  this  world," 
2  Cor.  iv.  4.  And  so  God  is  said  to  create  tovi  anovai,  "  the 
toorlds,"  Heb.  i.  2. — xi.  3.  If  we  take  it  in  this  sense,  Christ's 
promise  must  of  necessity  relate  to  the  dissolution  of  the 
fabric  of  the  world,  and  that  he  would  be  with  his  servants 
in  the  gospel,  till  all  things  be  dissolved.  Against  this  it  is 
pleaded  that  the  Gvvti%Ei.a,  or  "end,"  here  relates  to  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  and  that  aiujv  implies  the  state  of  things 
under  the  law,  which  would  continue  till  Jerusalem  were 
destroyed,  from  which  time  a  new  atwv  would  commence. 
But  to  this  I  answer,  first;  I  absolutely  deny,  that  cwtckiia 
tov  aiavoi,  doth  evcr  in  scripture  relate  to  the  destruction  of  the 
Jewish  state.  This  will  be  best  made  out  by  a  particular  view 
of  the  places  wherein  this  phrase  occurs.  The  first  time  we 
meet  with  this  phrase  is  in  Matth.  xiii.  where  we  have  it 
thrice,  ver.  39,  6  Se  ^fpts/to;  ewtiXBia  tov  aiwos  aft:  now  can  any 
be  so  senseless;  as  to  imagine  that  the  harvest  wherein  the 

'  Aifwv,  "Eternity;"  (1),  Absolutely;  (2),  Past  eternity;  (3),  Eternity  to  come.  (4), 
This  word  if  applied  to  a  being  of  endless  duration,  its  meaning  is  equivalent  to 
the  same;  (5),  if  to  a  being  of  secular  duration,  as  to  a  whole  dispensation,  a 
world  or  system  of  worlds,  its  meaning  is  commensurate  to  their  whole  exist- 
ence, which  is  virtually  eternity  to  it  or  to  those  beings.  It  has  no  sense  more 
limited  than  this.  Therefore  it  never  signifies  an  age  in  the  ordinary  accepta- 
tion of  that  English  term.     W"hat  say  the  universalists  to  this? — Am.  Ed. 

2  This  Hebrew  word  is  the  exact  parallel  to  awv,  and  has  the  same  significa- 
tions.— Am.  Ed. 

3  Philolog.  Sacr.  de  Hebr.  N.  T.  cap.  2. 


192  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

tares  shall  be  gathered,  and  cast  into'unquenchable  fire,  when 
the  angels  are  said  to  be  the  reapers,  and  to  gather  out  of 
Christ's  kingdom  every  thing  that  offends,  should  be  attributed 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem'^  and  so  ver.  40,  and  ver.  49, 
where  the  same  phrase  expresseth  the  same  time,  011*10?  fjat  tv 
tri  avvtsxsia  tov  atwi/oj,  "  Thus  shall  it  be  in  the  end  of  the 
world;"  where  the  antecedents  and  consequents  fully  declare, 
what  time  there  is  meant,  which  is  the  general  judgment  of 
the  world.  The  only  place  pleaded  for  this  sense,  is  Matthew 
xxiv.  3,  where  the  disciples  inquire  of  Christ  what  should  be 
the  sign,  t'ijj  si??  jta^ovsMi  xat  "tfji  awrtxsMi  Tfov  atcoroj,  "  of  thy 
coming,  and  of  the  end  of  the  world;"  where  granting,  that 
the  former  Christ's  coming  may  respect  his  coming  to  alter 
the  present  state  of  things,  according  to  the  Jews'  apprehen- 
sion of  the  Messias;  yet  I  deny  that  the  latter  doth,  but  it 
respects  the  general  destruction  of  the  world,  consequent  upon 
that  alteration:  for  the  Jews  not  only  expected  an  alteration 
of  the  present  state  of  things  among  them,  but  a  consequent 
destruction  of  the  world,  after  the  coming  of  the  Messias,  ac- 
cording to  that  speech  of  theirs  cited  by  Doctor  Lightfoot. 
D''J5y  ^Sx  nnn  nr  &)y;  "This  world  shall  be  destroyed  for  1000 
years,"  and  after  that  soS  "I'n;;  "there  should  be  the  state  of 
eternity."^  So  that  the  disciples,  speaking  in  the  sense  of  the 
Jews,  do  not  only  inquire  of  the  signs  of  his  altering  the 
present  state  of  things  among  them,  but  likewise  of  the  de- 
struction of  the  whole  world  too.  Accordingly  it  is  observa- 
ble, that  throughout  that  chapter,  our  Saviour  intermixeth 
his  answers  to  these  two  questions.  Sometimes  speaking  in 
reference  to  the  Jewish  state,  as  it  is  plain  he  doth,  verse  15, 
16,  and  so  on;  and  when  he  saith,  that  this  generation  shall 
not  pass,  till  all  these  things  be  fulfilled,  verse  34.  But  then 
it  is  as  evident,  that  some  places  must  relate  to  the  destruction 
of  the  world,  as  when  he  saith,  Of  that  day  and  hour  know- 
eth  no  man,  no  not  the  angels  of  Heaven,  but  the  Father 
only,  verse  36,  which  will  appear  more  plainly,  by  comparing 
it  with  Mark  xiii.  32.  Where  the  Son  is  excluded  from  knoiv- 
ing  that  hour  too;  but  how  can  any  say,  that  the  Son  did  not 
know  the  time  of  the  destruction  o{  Jerusalem,  which  he  him- 
self foretold  when  it  should  be?  And  those  words.  Heaven 
and  earth  shall  pass  away,  verse  35,  seem  to  be  our  Saviour's 
transition  to  the  answer  of  the  other  question,  about  the  final 
destruction  of  all  things.     However  that  be,  as  we  see  no 

<  HoroB  hcbr.  in  Matth.  xxiv.  3,  p.  262. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  193 

reason  at  all  why  gvvei%ci.a  ■tov  ai-wvoj,  should  only  respect  the 
subversion  of  the  Jewish  state:  but  supposing  it  should,  yet 
there  is  far  less  reason  why  it  should  be  so  meant,  in  the  place 
of  the  sense  we  are  inquiring  into.  For  if  by  Christ's  coming 
to  destroy  Jerusalem^  the  old  state  and  dispensation  should 
be  taken  away,  we  must  suppose  a  new  state  under  the 
Messias  to  begin  from  thence.  And  how  rational  doth  this 
sound,  that  Christ  should  promise  his  peculiar  presence  with 
his  own  apostles,  whom  he  employed  in  erecting  the  gospel 
state,  only  till  the  old  Jewish  state  be  subverted;  but  his  pro- 
mise not  at  all  to  extend  to  that  time,  wherein  the  state  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  Messias  should  be  set  up  instead  of  it:  and 
how  could  any  of  the  apostles,  for  example,  Saint  John,  who 
survived  the  destruction  oi  Jerusalem,  ex\iec{  Christ's  presence 
with  him,  by  virtue  of  this  promise,  if  it  extended  no  further 
than  to  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  state?  Besides,  it  is  a 
mere  groundless  fancy,  and  savours  of  the  Jewish  apprehen- 
sions of  the  state  of  the  Messias'  kingdom,  to  imagine  that  the 
temporal  state  of  Jertisalem  must  be  first  subverted  before 
that  atwv  or  dispensation  of  things  was  at  an  end.  For  the 
Jewish  state  and  dispensation  did  not  lie  in  the  Jewish  polity, 
but  in  obligation  to  the  Law  of  Moses,  which  expired  together 
with  Christ.  And  so  the  gospel  state,  which  is  called  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven,  and  the  Begeneration^  began  upon 
Christ's  resurrection  and  ascension,  v/hen  he  was  solemnly 
(as  it  were)  inaugurated  in  his  Mediatory  kingdom.  And  pre- 
sently after  sends  down  his  Viceroy  upon  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, in  the  effusion  of  the  spirit  upon  the  apostles,^  making 
good  his  promise  of  the  Paraclete  to  supply  his  absence: 
whereby  the  apostles  were  more  signally  empowered  for  the 
advancing  of  the  gospel  state. 

§  7.  The  dtcov  then  of  the  gospel  commenceth  from  Christ's 
resurrection,  and  to  this  diwr  I  am  very  inclinable  to  think  that 
our  Saviour  hath  reference  in  these  words,  when  he  saith,  he 
luill  be  ivith  his  disciples  to  the  end  of  that  dtw,  if  we  take 
it  for  a  state  of  things,  or  the  gospel  dispensation;  that  is,  as 
long  as  the  evangelical  church  shall  continue.  For  that  in 
scripture  is  sometimes  called  the  world  to  come,  and  that 
phrase  among  the  Jews^  of  xnn  nS;;,  "the  world  to  come,"  is 
set  to  express  the  times  of  the  Messias;  and  it  may  be  the 
apostle  may  refer  to  this,-*  when  he  speaks  of  apostates  tasting 

1  Matth.  xix.  28.  2  Acts  ii.  1. 

3  Heb.  ii.  5.    Lightfoot  Horae.  Hebr.  in  Matth.  xii.  32,  p.  173. 

4  Heb.  vi.  5. 

25 


194  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

Swafic^i  ts  fjiivKovtoi  dtuj/oj,  that  IS,  the  force  and  energy  of  the 
gospel  preached;  whence  the  khigdom  of  God  is  said  to  be 
not  (V  -koyu,  but  iv  bvvan.il,,  "not  iti  word,  but  in  power,"  which 
is  the  ttrto5«t|t5  mvivfiatoi  xav  5wajU«<oj,  spokeu  of  by  the  apostle 
elsewhere,^  "the  powerful  demonstration  of  the  spirit"  ac- 
companying the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  When  Christ  is 
called  by  the  prophet  n>' 'jx,  "the  everlasting  Father/'  the 
Septuagint  renders  it  by  jia.tri^  tov  fjt.£%.%ovloi  aiwo?,  and  so  the 
vulgar  Latin.  Pater  futuri  sseculi^  "the  Father  of  the  world 
to  come:"^  that  is,  the  gospel  state,  and  to  this  sense  Christ 
is  said  to  be  made  an  high  priest/  tuv  Hs-KXovtc^v  dya^w*',  "  of 
goods  things  to  come,"  and  the  law  to  be  a  shadow  •fui/ 
fiB^xov-tiov  dya^wf,  "of  good  things  wliich  should  be  under  the 
new  state  of  the  gospel."''  And  which  is  more  plain  to  the 
purpose,  the  apostle  expresseth  what  was  to  come  to  pass  in 
the  days  of  the  gospel,*  iv  to/.^  dMot  -toi?  i}ii^x°{*-^voii,  "  in  the 
ages  to  come,"  where  the  very  word  dtwv  is  used  to  this  sense. 
And  according  to  this  importance  of  the  word  dtw,  some  very 
probably  interpret  that  place  of  our  Saviour*^  concerning  the 
sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  it  should  not  be  forgiven 
ovtB  tv  -tov-tio  Ti'to  aiuivv,  ovts  iv  fa  fie'kxovti,  "neither  in  the  present 
state"  of  the  Jewish  church,  wherein  there  is  no  sacrifice  of 
expiation  for  contumacious  sinners,^  but  they  that  despised 
Moses'  law  died  without  mercy;  so  neither  shall  there  be, 
any  under  the  "world  to  come,"  that  is,  the  dispensation  of 
gospel  grace,  any  pardon  proclaimed  to  any  such  sinners  who 
trample  under  foot  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  and  offer  de- 
spite to  the  spirit  of  grace.^  Thus  we  see  how  properly  the 
word  Q.i,av  may  agree  here  to  the  gospel  state,  and  so  Christ's 
promise  of  his  presence  doth  imply  the  perpetuity  of  that 
office  as  long  as  the  evangelical  state  shall  remain,  which  will 
be  to  the  world's  end. 

§  8.  The  third  thing,  whereby  to  know  when  positive  in- 
stitutions are  unalterable,  is,  when  they  are  necessary  to  the 
being,  succession,  and  continuance  of  the  church  of  God. 
Now  this  yields  a  further  evidence  of  the  perpetuity  of 
officers  in  the  church  of  God,  seeing  the  church  itself  cannot 
be  preserved  without  the  government;  and  there  can  be  no 
government  without  some  to  rule  the  members  of  the  church 
of  God,  and  to  take  care  for  a  due  administration  of  church 

1  1  Cor.  iv.  20.  2  ]  Cor.  ii.  4. 

3  Isaiah  ix.  5;  Heb.  ix.  11.  ^  Hcb.  x.  1. 

6  Epli.  ii.  7.  6  Matth.  xii.  32. 

7  D.  Reynolds  on  Hosea  xiv.  3.  s  Hcb.  x.  27,  27,  28. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  195 

privileges,  and  to  inflict  censures  upon  offenders,  which  is  the 
power  tliey  are  invested  in  by  the  same  authority  which  was 
the  ground  of  tlieir  institution  at  first.  It  is  not  conceivable 
how  any  society,  as  the  church  is,  can  be  preserved  without 
the  continuance  of  church  officers  among  them.  As  long 
as  the  body  of  Christ  must  be  edified,  there  must  be  some 
xatripttsfilvoc,  tU  e^yav  Siaxovia;,  "fitted  for  the  work  of  the  minis- 
try," which  is  appointed  in  order  to  that  end.  For  that  I 
suppose  is  the  apostle's  meaning  in  Ephes.  iv.  12,^  following 
the  Complutensian  copy,  leaving  out  the  comma  between 
aytwi' and  Etj  f^yoj/,  which  makes  as  though  it  were  a  distinct 
thing  from  the  former;  whereas  the  original  carries  the  sense 
on;  for  otherwise  it  should  have  been  stj  xa'ta.^-ti.afiov  -tuv  dytac, 
SIS  epyov  fiiaxoj'taj,  &c.  and  those  who  follow  the  ordinary  read- 
ing, are  much  at  a  loss  how  to  explain  that  it;  Ipyov  Staxovia^ 
coming  in  so  in  the  midst  without  dependence  upon  the 
former.  Therefore  the  viUgate  Latin  best  renders  it  ad  con- 
sum,m,ationem  sanctorum,  ad  opus  ministerii;  "for  the  com- 
pleting of  the  saints  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  in  order  to 
the  building  up  of  the  body  of  Christ;"  and  to  this  purpose 
Musculus  informs  us,  the  German  version  renders  it.  And 
so  we  understand  the  enumeration  in  the  verse  before^  of 
apostles,  prophets,  evangelists, pastors  and  teachers,  not  for 
the  persons  themselves,  but  for  the  gifts  of  those  persons,  the 
office  of  apostles,  evangelists,  pastors,  4"C.  which  is  most 
suitable  to  the  Ihi^xs  Soixata  in  the  eighth  verse.  He  gave  gifts 
to  men;  now  these  gifts,  saith  he,  Christ  gave  to  men  n^oi 

xata^tt'Sfidv    -tav  ayiiov  £15  t^yov  SvaxovoaiiJOr  the  fitting  the  Saints 

for  the  ivork  of  the  ministry.  Not  as  a  late  democratical 
i^rzVer  would  persuade  us,  as  though  all  the  saints  were  thereby 
fitted  for  this  work  of  the  ministry,  (for  that  the  apostle  ex- 
cludes by  the  former  enumeration;)  for,  are  all  the  saints 
fitted  for  apostles?  are  all  prophets,  are  all  evangelists,  are  all 
pastors  and  teachers?  as  the  apostle  himself  elsewhere  argues, 
and  in  the  eighth  verse  of  that  chapter,^  he  particularly  men- 
tions the  several  gifts  qualifying  men  for  several  useful  em- 
ployments in  the  church  of  God,  the  spirit  dividing  to  every 
man  severally  as  he  will.  Therefore  it  cannot  be  that  all  the 
saints  are  hereby  fitted  for  this  work;  but  God  hath  scattered 
these  gifts  among  the  saints,  that  those  who  have  them  might 


2  Eph.  iv.  11.  3  1  Cor.  xii.  29,  8,  9,  10,  11. 


196  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

be  fitted,  si^  e^yov  Staxoi/taj,  "for  the  work  of  the  ministry," 
because  God  would  not  leave  his  church  without  persons 
qualified  for  the  service  of  himself  in  the  work  of  the  minis- 
try, in  order  to  the  building  up  of  the  body  of  Christ.  And 
by  the  -tuv  Lyiav,  here  may  be  meant  no  other  than  those  he 
speaks  of  in  the  chapter  before,  when  he  speaks  of  the  reve- 
lation   made  ■folV  aytoij  artoyoXotj  aviov  xao  ft^o^tj-tcki^,  "tO  his  holy 

apostles  and  prophets,"^  and  so  God  gave  these  gifts  for  the 
fitting  the  holy  apostles,  &c.  for  the  work  of  the  ministry.  It 
cannot  be  meant  of  all,  so  as  to  destroy  a  peculiar  function 
of  the  ministry;  for  GoiVs  very  giving  these  gifts  to  some 
and  not  to  others,  is  an  evidence  that  the  function  \s  peculiar. 
For  else  had  the  gifts  been  common  to  all,  every  saint  had 
been  an  apostle,  every  believer  a  pastor,  and  teacher,  and  then 
where  had  the  people  been  that  must  have  been  ruled  and 
governed?  So  that  this  very  place  doth  strongly  assert  both 
the  peculiarity  of  the  function,  from  the  peculiarity  of  gifts  in 
order  to  fitting  men  for  it;  and  the  perpetuity  of  the  function 
from  the  end  of  it,  the  building  up  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
Thus  I  have  now  asserted  the  perpetual  divine  right  of  a 
gospel  ministry,  not  only  for  teaching  the  word,  but  adminis- 
tration of  ordinances,  and  governing  the  church  as  a  society: 
which  work  belongs  to  none  but  such  as  are  appointed  for  it, 
who  are  the  same  Avith  the  dispensers  of  the  word,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  titles  of  ^^you^ti/oi,  ri^os^uitsi,  rtoifisvss,  "governors, 
rulers,  pastors,"^  all  which  necessarily  imply  a  governing 
power,  which  having  been  largely  proved  by  others,  and 
yielded  by  me,  I  pass  over. 

1  Eph.  iii.  5. 

2  Heb.  xiii.  7,  17;  1  Tim.  v.  17;  Eph.  iv.  11. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  197 


CHAPTER   III. 

The  question  fully  stated.  Not  what  form  of  government  comes  the  nearest  to 
the  primitive  practice,  but  whether  any  be  absolutely  determined.  Several 
things  propounded  for  resolving  the  question.  What  the  form  of  church 
government  was  under  the  law.  How  far  Christians  are  bound  to  observe 
that.  Neither  the  necessity  of  superiority,  nor  the  unlawfulness  can  be  proved 
thence. 

§  1.  And  now  I  come  to  the  main  subject  of  the  present 
controversy,  which  is  acknowledging  a  form  of  government 
necessary,  and  the  governors  of  the  church  perpetual;  whether 
the  particular  form  whereby  the  church  must  be  governed, 
be  determined  by  any  positive  law  of  God,  which  unalterably 
binds  all  Christians  to  see  the  observation  of  it?  By  church 
here,  I  mean  not  a  particular  congregation,  but  such  a  society 
which  comprehends  in  it  many  of  these  less  congregations 
united  together  in  one  body  under  a  form  of  government. 
The  forms  of  government  in  controversy,  the  question  being 
thus  stated,  are  only  these  two,  the  particular  officers  of  seve- 
ral churches,  acting  in  an  equality  of  power,  which  are  com- 
monly called  a  college  of  presbyters;  or  a  superior  order 
above  the  standing  ministry,  having  the  power  of  jurisdiction 
and  ordination  belonging  to  it  by  virtue  of  a  divine  institution. 
Which  order  is  by  an  antonomasia^  called  episcopacy.  The 
question  now,  is  not,  which  of  these  two  doth  come  the 
nearest  to  apostolical  practice,  and  the  first  institution,  which 
hath  hitherto  been  the  controversy  so  hotly  debated  among 
us;  but  whether  either  of  these  two  forms  be  so  settled  by  a 
jus  divinum,  that  is,  be  so  determined  by  a  positive  law  of 
God,  that  all  the  churches  of  Christ  are  bound  to  observe  that 
one  form  so  determined,  without  variation  from  it;  or  whether 
Christ  hath  not  in  setthng  of  his  church,  (provided  there  be 

'  A  rhetorical  figure,  by  which  a  name  different  from  the  proper  name  is  given 
to  a  thing. 


198  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

some  form  of  government,  and  a  settled  ministry  for  the  exer- 
cise of  it,)  left  it  to  the  prudence  of  every  particular  church, 
consisting  of  many  congregations,  to  agree  upon  its  own  form 
which  it  judgeth  most  conducing  to  the  end  of  government  in 
that  particular  church.  Avtov  ^o9oi,  avfov  rti^S^^^a.^  Here  now 
we  fix  ourselves,  and  the  first  thing  we  do,  is  to  agree  upon 
our  ways  of  resolution  of  this  question,  whereby  to  come  to 
an  end  of  this  debate.  And  the  most  probable  way  to  come 
to  an  issue  in  it,  is,  to  go  through  all  the  ways  whereon  men 
do  fix  an  unalterable  divine  right,  and  to  see  whether  any  of 
these  do  evince  a  divine  right  settled  upon  a  positive  law  or 
not,  for  one  of  these  forms.  The  pleas  then  for  such  a  divine 
right  are  these;  either  some  formal  law  standing  in  force 
under  the  gospel,  or  some  plain  institution  of  a  new  law  by 
Christ  in  forming  his  church,  or  the  obligatory  nature  of  apos- 
tolical practice,  or  the  general  sense  of  the  primitive  church, 
to  which  we  shall  add  by  way  of  appendix,  the  judgment  of 
the  chief  divines  and  churches  since  the  reformation;  if  we  go 
happily  through  these,  we  may  content  ourselves  with  having 
obtained  the  things  we  aim  at. 

§  2.  The  first  inquiry  then  is,  whether  any  formal  law  of 
God  concerning  a  form  of  government  for  his  church,  either 
by  persons  acting  in  an  equality  of  power,  or  subordination 
of  one  order  to  another,  under  the  gospel,  doth  remain  in 
force  or  not,  binding  Christians  to  the  observing  of  it.  The 
reason  why  I  begin  with  this,  is,  because  1  observe  the  dis- 
putants on  both  sides  make  use  of  the  pattern  under  the  law 
to  establish  their  form  by.^  Those  who  are  for  superiority 
of  one  order  above  another  in  the  government  of  the  church, 
derive  commonly  their  first  argument  from  the  pattern  under 
the  law.^  Those  who  are  for  an  equality  of  power  in  the 
persons  acting  in  government,  yet  being  for  a  subordination 
of  courts,  they  bring  their  first  argument  for  that,  from  the 
Jewish  pattern.  So  that  these  latter  are  bound  by  their  own 
argument,  though  used  in  another  case,  to  be  ruled  in  this 
controversy  by  the  Jewish  pattern.  For  why  should  it  be 
more  obligatory  as  to  subordination  of  courts,  than  as  to  the 
superiority  of  orders?     If  it  holds  in  one  case,  it  must  in  the 

'  "  7"'iicrc  was  tlie  roaring  of  the  waves,  hence  the  start,  the  spring;"  equivalent 
to  the  Latin  motto:  hic-carcer,  illic  meta,  that  was  tiie  beginning,  this  the  end  of 
the  race;  see  Adams's  Antiquities. 

2  B.  Bilson  Perpet.  Govern,  cap.  2.  B.  Andrews'  Form  of  Government  in  the 
old  T.  B.  Usiier.  Original  of  Episc. 

8  Herl  of  iudep.  p.  4.     Apol.  Spanhem.  omnes. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  199 

Other.  And  if  there  be  such  a  law  for  superiority  standing 
unrepealed,  there  needs  no  new  law  to  enfore  it  under  the 
gospel.  We  shall  therefore  first  inquire  what  foundation 
there  is  for  either  form  in  that  pattern,  and  how  far  the  argu- 
ment drawn  from  thence  is  obligatory  to  us  now.  For  the 
practice  then  in  the  Jewish  church,  tliat  there  was  no  universal 
equality  in  the  tribe  of  Levi,  which  God  singled  out  from  the 
rest  for  his  own  service,  is  obvious  in  scripture.  For  tiiere 
we  ^n(\  priests  above  the  Levites;  the  family  oi  Aaron  being 
chosen  out  from  the  other  families  of  Cohath,  (one  of  the 
three  sous  of  Levi,)  to  be  employed  in  a  nearer  attendance 
upon  God's  service  than  any  of  the  other  families.  And  it 
must  be  acknowledged,  that  among  both  priests  and  Levites 
there  was  a  superiority:^  for  God  placed  Eleazar  over  the 
priests,  Elizaphan  over  the  Cohathites,  Eliasciph  over  the 
Gershonites,  Ziiriel  over  the  Merarites;  and  these  are  called 
D'N'D'J,  "the  rulers  or  princes,"  over  their  several  families; 
for  it  is  said  of  every  one  of  them  3X  n':3  army,  "  he  ivas  ruler 
over  the  house  of  his  fatherP"^  Neither  were  these  equal; 
for  over  Eliasaph  and  Zuriel  God  placed  Ithamar,  over 
Elizaphan  and  his  own  family  God  set  Eleazar,^  who  by 
reason  of  his  authority  over  all  the  rest,  is  called  "K'tyj  ^''Uii, 
"the  ruler  of  the  rulers,^'  of  Levi,  cind  besides  these  there 
were  under  these  rulers  i^'ia  ■li'Ni,  "Me  chief  fathers^'  of  the 
several  distinct  families,  as  they  are  called,  Exodus  vi.  26. 
|]3^  Thus  we  briefly  see  the  subordination  that  there  was  in 
the  tribe  oi  Levi;  the  Levites  first,  over  them  the  heads  of  the 
families,  over  them  the  rulers,  ox  the  chief  o{  the  heads,  over 
them  Ithamar,  over  both  priests  and  Levites,  Eleazar;  over 
all,  Jiaron  the  high  priest. 

§  3.  There  being  then  so  manifest  an  inequality  among  them, 
proceed  we  to  show  how  obligatory  this  is  under  the  gospel. 
For  that  end  it  will  be  necessary  to  consider,  whether  this 
imparity  and  superiority  were  peculiarly  appointed  by  God 
for  the  ecclesiastical  government  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  as  it 
consisted  of  persons  to  be  employed  in  the  service  of  God,  or 
it  was  only  such  an  inequality  and  superiority  as  was  in  any 
other  tribe.  If  only  common  with  other  tribes,  nothing  can 
be  inferred  from  thence  peculiar  to  ecclesiastical  government 
under  the  gospel,  any  more  than  from  the  government  of 
other  tribes  to  the  same  kind  of  government  in  all  civil  states. 
We  must  then  take  notice  that  Levi  was  a  particular  distinct 

»  Numb.  iii.  30,  34,  35.  2  Numb.  iv.  28,  32. 

3  Numb.  iv.  19. 


200  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

tribe  of  itself,  and  so  not  in  subordination  to  any  other  tribe; 
for  each  had  "  the  heads  of  its  fathers  as  tvell  as  others,"" 
Exodus  vi.  25;  and  although  when  they  settled  in  Canaan, 
their  habitations  were  intermixed  with  other  tribes  in  their 
forty-eight  cities,  yet  they  were  not  under  the  government 
of  those  tribes  among  whom  they  lived,  but  preserved  their 
authority  and  government  entire  among  themselves.  And 
therefore  it  was  necessary  that  there  should  be  the  same  form 
of  government  among  them,  which  there  was  among  the  rest. 
The  whole  body  of  the  nation  was  then  divided  into  thirteen 
tribes;  these  tribes  into  their  several  families;  some  say 
seventy,  which  they  called  mnDiyD,  "names  or  families,"  these 
were  divided  into  so  many  "households,"  D'n:i;  "their  house- 
holds into  children  or  persons,"  D'"i333;  over  the  several  per- 
sons were  the  several  masters  of  families;  over  the  several 
households  were  the  captains  of  one  thousand  and  one  hun- 
dred, fifty  and  ten.  Over  the  families,  I  suppose,  were  the 
heads  of  the  fathers.  And  over  the  thirteen  tribes  were  the 
mioon  nn5<  -tyxi,  ^'the  chief  fathers  of  the  tribes''^  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  Numb,  xxxii.  2S,  and  we  have  the  names  of 
them  set  down,  Numb,  xxxiv,  17,  &c.  So  that  hitherto,  we 
find  nothing  peculiar  to  this  tribe,  nor  proper  to  it  as  em- 
ployed in  the  service  of  God.  For  their  several  families  had 
their  several  heads,  and  Eleazar  over  them  as  chief  of  the 
tribe.  And  so  we  find,  throughout  Numbers  ii.  all  the  heads 
of  the  several  tribes  are  named  and  appointed  by  God  as 
Eleazar  was. 

§  4.  The  only  things  then  which  seem  proper  to  this  tribe, 
were  the  superiority  of  the  priests  over  the  Levites  in  the  ser- 
vice of  God,  and  the  super-eminent  power  of  the  high  priest, 
as  the  type  of  Christ.  So  that  nothing  can  be  inferred  from 
the  order  under  the  law  as  to  that  under  the  gospel,  but  from 
one  of  these  two.  And  from  the  first  there  can  be  nothing 
deduced  but  this,  that  as  there  was  a  superiority  of  officers 
under  the  law,  so  likewise  should  there  be  under  the  gospel; 
which  is  granted  by  all  in  the  superiority  o{ priests  over  dea- 
cons, to  whom  these  two  answer  in  the  church  of  God,  in  the 
judgment  of  those  who  contend  for  a  higher  order  by  divine 
institution  above  presbyters.  And  withal  we  must  consider, 
that  there  was  under  that  order  no  power  of  jurisdiction  in- 
vested in  the  priests  over  the  Levites,  but  that  was  in  the 
heads  of  the  families;  and  ordination  there  could  not  be,  be- 
cause their  office  descended  by  succession  in  their  several 
families.   Those  who  would  argue  from  Jiaron\'i  power,  must 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  201 

either  bring  too  little,  or  too  much  from  thence.  Too  little, 
if  we  consider  his  office  was  typical  and  ceremonial,  and  as 
high  priest  had  more  immediate  respect  to  God  than  men, 
Heb.  V.  1,  and  therefore  Eleazar  was  appointed  over  the 
several  families  during  Aaron^s  lifetime;  and  under  Eleazar, 
his  son  Phinehas.  Too  much,  if  a  necessity  be  urged  for  the 
contiiuiance  of  the  same  authority  in  the  church  of  God;  which 
is  the  argument  of  the  papists,  deriving  the  pope's  supremacy 
from  thence.  Which  was  acutely  done  by  pope  Innocent  the 
third;  the  father  of  the  Lateran  Council,  who  proved,  that 
the  pope  may  exercise  temporal  jurisdiction  from  that  place 
in  Deuteronomy  xvii.  8,  and  that  by  this  reason,  because  Deu- 
teronomy did  imply  the  second  law,  and  therefore  lohat  was 
there  written  in  novo  testam,ento  debet  observari,  "must  be 
observed  under  the  gospel,"  which,  acccording  to  them,  is  a 
new  law. 

§  5.  All  that  can  be  inferred  then  from  the  Jewish  pattern, 
cannot  amount  to  any  obligation  upon  Christians,  it  brings  at 
the  best  but  a  judicial  law,  and  therefore  binds  us  not  up  as 
a  positive  law;  but  only  declares  the  equity  of  the  thing  in 
use  then.  I  conclude  then,  that  the  Jewish  pattern  is  no 
standing  law  for  church  government  now,  either  in  its  common 
or  peculiar  form  of  government;  but  because  there  was  some 
superiority  of  order  then,  and  subordination  of  some  persons 
to  others  under  that  government,  that  such  a  superiority  and 
subordination  is  no  ways  unlawful  under  the  gospel;  for  that 
would  destroy  the  equity  of  the  law.  And  though  the  form 
of  government  was  the  same  with  that  of  other  tribes,  yet  we 
see  God  did  not  bind  them  to  an  equality,  because  they  were 
for  his  immediate  service,  but  continued  the  same  way  as  in 
other  tribes;  thence  I  infer,  that  as  there  is  no  necessary  obli- 
gation upon  Christians  to  continue  that  form  under  the  Jews, 
because  their  laws  do  not  bind  us  now;  so  neither  is  there 
any  repugnancy  to  this  law  in  such  a  subordination,  but  it  is 
very  agreeable  with  the  equity  of  it,  it  being  instituted  for 
peace  and  order,  and  therefore  ought  not  to  be  condemned  as 
anti-Christian.  The  Jewish  pattern  then  of  government  neither 
makes  equality  unlawful,  because  their  laws  do  not  oblige 
now;  nor  doth  it  make  superiority  unlawful,  because  it  was 
practised  then.  So  that  notwithstanding  the  Jewish  pattern, 
the  church  of  Christ  is  left  to  its  own  liberty  for  the  choice  of 
its  form  of  government,  whether  by  an  equality  of  power  in 
some  persons,  or  superiority  and  subordination  of  one  order  to 
another. 
2^ 


202  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 


CHAPTER    IV. 

Whether  Christ  hath  determined  the  form  of  government  by  any  positive  laws. 
Arguments  of  tlie  necessity  why  Christ  must  determine  it,  largely  answered; 
as  First,  Christ's  faithfulness  compared  with  Moses,  answered,  and  retorted, 
and  proved,  that  Christ  did  not  institute  any  form  of  church  government, 
because  no  such  law  for  it  as  Moses  gave;  and  we  have  nothing  but  general 
rules,  which  are  applicable  to  several  forms  of  government.  The  office  of 
Timothy  and  Titus,  what  it  proves  in  order  to  this  question:  the  lawfulness  of 
Episcopacy  shown  thence,  but  not  tlie  necessity.  A  particular  form,  how  far 
necessary,  as  Christ  was  the  governor  of  his  church;  the  similitudes  the  church 
is  set  out  by,  prove  not  the  thing  in  question.  Nor  the  difference  of  civil 
and  church  government:  nor  Christ  setting  officers  in  his  church;  nor  the 
inconvenience  of  the  church's  power  in  appointing  new  officers.  Every 
minister  hath  a  power  respecting  the  church  in  common,  which  the  church 
may  restrain.  Episcopacy  thence  proved  lawful;  the  argument  from  the 
Scriptures'  perfection  answered. 

§  1.  We  come  then  from  the  type  to  the  antitype,  from  the 
Rod  of  Aaron  to  the  Root  of  Jesse,  from  the  pattern  of  the 
Jewish  church,  to  the  Founder  of  the  Christian:  to  see  whether 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  hath  determined  this  controversy,  or 
any  one  form  of  government  for  his  church,  by  any  univer- 
sally binding  act  or  law  of  his.  And  here  it  is  pleaded  more 
hotly  by  many  that  Christ  must  do  it,  than  that  he  hath 
done  it.  And  therefore  I  shall  first  examine  the  pretences  of 
the  necessity  of  Christ's  determining  the  particular  form;  and 
then  the  arguments  that  are  brought  that  he  hath  done  it. 
The  main  pleas  that  there  must  be  a  perfect  form  of  church 
government  laid  down  by  Christ  for  the  church  of  God,  are 
from  the  comparison  of  Christ  with  Moses^  from  the  equal 
necessity  of  forms  of  i^overnment  note  ivhich  there  is  for 
other  societies,  from  the  perfection  and  sufficiency  of  the 
scriptures;  all  other  arguments  are  reducible  to  these  three 
heads.     Of  these  in  their  order. 

'  Heh.  i,  2, 5,  6. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  203 

Arg.  1.  First,  From  the  comparison  of  Christ  luith  Moses, 
they  argue  thus:  if  Moses  teas  faithful  in  his  house  as  a  ser- 
vant, much  more  Christ  as  a  son;  oioiv  Moses  appointed  a 
particular  form  of  government  for  the  church  under  the 
Old  Testament;  therefore  Christ  did  certainly  lay  down  a 
form,  of  church  government  for  the  New  Testament. 

Answ.  1.  To  this  I  answer:  first,  faithfuhiess  iirij)Ues  the 
discharge  of  a  trust  reposed  in  one  by  another:  so  that  it  is 
said  verse  2,  he  ivas  faithful  to  him  that  appointed  him: 
Christ's  faithfulness  then  lay  in  discharging  the  work  which 
his  Father  laid  upon  him,  wliich  was  the  work  of  mediation 
between  God  and  us;  and  therefore  the  comparison  is  here 
instituted  between  Moses  as  typical  Mediator,  and  Christ  as 
the  true  Mediator;  that  as  Moses  was  faithful  in  his  work,  so 
was  Christ  in  his.  Now  Moses'  faithfulness  lay  in  keeping 
close  to  the  pattern  received  in  the  mount,  that  is,  observing 
the  commands  of  God;  therefore  if  Christ's  being  faithful  in 
his  office,  doth  imply  the  settling  any  one  form  of  government 
in  the  church,  it  must  be  made  appear  that  the  settling  of  this 
form  was  part  of  Christ's  mediatory  work,  and  that  which  the 
father  commanded  him  to  do  as  mediator;  and  that  Christ 
received  such  a  form  from  the  Father  for  the  Christian  church, 
as  Moses  did  for  the  Jewish.  To  this  it  is  said,  that  the 
goverjiment  is  laid  upon  ChrisVs  shoulders,  and  all  power 
is  in  his  hands;^  and  therefore  it  belongs  to  him  as  mediator. 
Christ  I  grant  is  the  King  of  the  church,  and  doth  govern  it 
outwardly  by  his  laws,  and  inwardly  by  the  conduct  of  his 
spirit:  but  shall  we  say,  that  therefore  any  one  form  of  govern- 
ment is  necessary,  which  is  neither  contained  in  his  laws,  nor 
dictated  by  his  spirit?  The  main  original  of  mistakes  here, 
is,  the  confounding  the  external  and  internal  government  of 
the  church  of  Christ,  and  thence  whensoever  men  read  of 
Christ's  power,  aitthority  and  government,  they  fancy  it  refers 
to  the  outward  government  of  the  church  of  God,  which  is 
intended  of  his  internal  mediatory  power  over  the  hearts  and 
consciences  of  men.  But  withal  I  acknowledge  that  Christ 
for  the  better  government  of  his  church  and  people,  hath  ap- 
pointed officers  in  his  church,  invested  them  by  virtue  of  his 
own  power  with  an  authority  to  preach  and  baptize,  and 
administer  all  gospel  ordinances  in  his  own  name,  that  is,  by 
his  authority;^  for  it  is  clearly  made  known  to  us  in  the  word 
of  God,  that  Christ  hath  appointed  these  things.     But  then, 

I  Isa.  ix.  6.     Matlh.  xxviii.  18.  2  Matth.  xxviii.  18,  19. 


204  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

whether  any  shall  succeed  the  apostles  in  superiority  of  power 
over  presbyters,  or  all  remain  governing  the  church  in  an 
equality  of  power,  is  nowhere  determined  by  the  will  of 
Christ  in  scripture,  which  contains  his  royal  law:  and  there- 
fore we  have  no  reason  to  look  upon  it  as  anything  flowing 
from  the  power  and  authority  of  Christ  as  mediator;  and  so 
not  necessarily  binding  Christians. 

§2.  Secondly,  I  answer:  if  the  correspondence  between  Christ 
and  Moses  in  their  work,  doth  imply  an  equal  exactness  in 
Christ's  disposing  of  everything  in  his  church,  as  Moses  did 
among  the  Jews;  then  the  church  of  Christ  must  be  equally 
bound  to  all  circumstances  of  worship  as  the  Jews  were.  For 
there  was  nothing  appertaining  in  the  least  to  the  worship  of 
God,  but  was  fully  set  down  even  to  the  pins  of  the  tabernacle 
in  the  law  of  Moses;  but  we  find  no  such  thing  in  the  gospel. 
The  main  duties  and  ordinances  are  prescribed  indeed,  but 
their  circumstances  and  manner  of  performance  are  left  as 
matters  of  Christian  liberty,  and  only  couched  under  some 
general  rules:  which  is  a  great  difference  between  the  legal 
and  gospel  state.  Under  the  law  all  ceremonies  and  circum- 
stances are  exactly  prescribed:  but  in  the  gospel  we  read  of 
some  general  rules  of  direction  for  Christians'  carriage  in  all 
circumstantial  things.  These  four  especially  contain  all  the 
directions  of  scripture  concerning  circumstantials.  "All  things 
to  be  done  decently  and  in  order.''^  "All  to  be  done  for 
edification. "2  "Give  no  offence."^  "Do  all  to  the  glory  of 
God."^  So  that  the  particular  circumstances  are  left  to  Chris- 
tian liberty  with  the  observation  of  general  rules.  It  is  evident 
as  to  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,^  which  are  unquestion- 
ably of  divine  institution,  yet  as  to  the  circumstances  of  the 
administration  of  them,  how  much  less  circumstantial  is  Christ 
than  Moses  was.  As  to  circumcision  and  the  passover  under 
the  law,  the  age,  time,  persons,  manner,  place,  form,  all  fully 
set  down;  but  nothing  so  under  the  gospel.  Whether  baptism 
shall  be  administered  to  infants  or  not,  is  not  set  down  in 
express  words,  but  left  to  be  gathered  by  analogy  and  conse- 
quences; what  manner  it  shall  be  administered  in,  whether 
by  dipping  or  sprinkling,  is  not  absolutely  determined;  what 
form  of  words  to  be  used,  whether  in  the  name  of  all  three 
persons,  or  sometimes  in  the  name  of  Christ  only,  as  in  the 
Jicts'^  we  read,  (if  that  be  the  sense,  and  not  rather  in  Christ's 

'  1  Cor.  xiv.  40.  2  i  Cor.  xiv.  26. 

3  1  Cor.  X.  32.  4  1  Cor.  x.  31. 

5  Rom.  xiv.  6,  7,  6  Acts  ii.  38,  viii.  12,  xix.  5. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  205 

name,  i.  e.  by  Christ's  authority.)  Whether  sprinkUug  or 
dipping  shall  be  thrice  as  some  churches  use  it,  or  only  once 
as  others.  These  things  we  see  relating  to  an  ordinance  of 
divine  institution,  are  yet  passed  over  without  any  express 
command  determining  either  way  in  scripture.  So  as  to  the 
Lord's  supper;  what  persons  to  be  admitted  to  it,  whether  all 
visible  professors,  or  only  sincere  Christians:  upon  what  terms, 
whether  by  previous  examination  of  church  officers;  or  by  an 
open  profession  of  their  faith,  or  else  only  by  their  own  trial 
of  themselves,  required  of  them  as  their  duty  by  their  minis- 
ters; whether  it  should  be  always  after  supper  as  Christ 
himself  did;  whether  taken  fasting,  or  after  meat,  whether 
kneeling,  or  sitting,  or  leaning?  Whether  to  be  consecrated 
in  one  form  of  words,  or  several?  These  things  are  not 
thought  fit  to  be  determined  by  any  positive  commai:d  of 
Christ,  but  left  to  the  exercise  of  Christian  liberty;  the  like  is 
as  to  preaching  the  word,  public  prayer,  singing  of  psalms; 
the  duties  are  required,  but  the  particular  modes  are  left  un- 
determined. The  case  is  the  same  as  to  church  government. 
That  the  church  be  governed,  and  that  it  be  governed  by  its 
proper  officers,  are  things  of  divine  appointment:  but  whether 
the  church  should  be  governed  by  many  joining  together  in 
an  equality,  or  by  subordination  of  some  persons  to  others,  is 
left  to  the  same  liberty  which  all  other  circumstances  are;  this 
being  not  the  substance  of  the  thing  itself,  but  only  the  man- 
ner of  performing  it. 

§  3. — Thirdly,  I  answer,  that  there  is  a  manifest  disparity 
between  the  Gospel  and  Jewish  state:  and  therefore  reasons 
may  be  given  why  all  punctilios  were  determined  then  which 
are  not  now:  as, 

1.  The  perfection  and  liberty  of  the  gospel  state  above  the 
Jewish.  The  law  was  only  as  a  pedagogue,  the  church  then 
in  her  infancy  and  nonage,  and  therefore  wanted  ihe  fescues^ 
of  ceremonies  to  direct  her,  and  every  part  of  her  lesson  set 
her,  to  bring  her  by  degrees  to  skill  and  exactness  in  her 
understanding  the  mystery  of  the  things  represented  to  her. 
But  must  the  church,  now  grown  up  under  Christ,  be  still  sub 
/erw/a,  "under  the  cane,"  and  not  dare  to  vary  in  any  cir- 
cumstance which  doth  not  concern  the  thing  itself!  A  boy 
at  school  hath  his  lesson  set  him,  and  the  manner  of  learning 
it  prescribed  him  in  every  mode  and  circumstance.  But  at 
the  university  he  hath  his  lectures  read  him,  and  his  work  set, 

'  "A  wire  or  pointer  to  siiow  children  the  letters." 


206  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

and  general  directions  given,  but  he  is  left  to  his  own  liberty 
how  to  perform  his  work,  and  what  manner  to  use  in  the 
doing  of  it.  So  it  was  with  the  church  under  age.  Every 
mode  and  circumstance  was  determined;  but  when  fulness  of 
time  was  come,  the  church  then  being  grown  up,  the  main 
offices  themselves  were  appointed,  and  general  directions 
given;  but  a  liberty  left  how  to  apply  and  make  use  of  them, 
as  to  every  particular  case  and  occasion.  Things  moral 
remain  still  in  their  full  force,  but  circumstantials  are  left 
more  at  liberty  by  the  gospel  liberty;  as  a  son  that  is  taught 
by  his  father,  while  he  is  under  his  instruction,  must  observe 
every  particular  direction  for  him  in  his  learning;  but  when 
he  comes  to  age,  though  he  observes  not  those  things  as  for- 
merly, yet  his  sonship  continues,  and  he  must  obey  his  father 
as  a  cliild  still,  though  not  in  the  same  manner.  The  simih- 
tude  is  the  apostle's,  Galat.  iv.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  10,  which  he 
there  largely  amplifies  to  this  very  purpose  of  freeing  Chris- 
tians from  judaical  ceremonies. 

2.  The  form  of  government  among  the  Jews  in  the  tribe  of 
Levi,  was  agreeable  to  the  form  of  government  among  the 
other  tribes;  and  so  Moses  was  not  more  exact  in  reference  to 
it  than  to  any  other;  and  those  persons  in  that  tribe  who 
were  the  chief  before  the  institution  of  the  Aaronical  priest- 
hood, were  so  after;  but  now  under  the  gospel  people  are  not 
under  the  same  restrictions  for  civil  government  by  a  judaical 
law,  as  they  were  then.  For  the  form  of  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment then  took  place  among  them  as  one  of  their  judaical 
laws;  and  therefore  if  the  argument  hold,  Christ  must  as  well 
prescribe  a  form  for  civil  government  as  ecclesiastical;  if 
Christ  in  the  gospel  must  by  his  faithfulness  follow  the  pat- 
tern of  Moses.  But  if  Christ  be  not  bound  to  follow  Moses' 
pattern  as  to  judaical  law,  for  his  church  and  people,  neither 
is  he  as  to  a  form  of  ecclesiastical  government,  because  thai 
was  a  part  of  their  civil  and  judaical  law. 

3.  The  people  of  the  Jews  was  a  whole  and  entire  people, 
subsisting  by  themselves  when  one  set  form  of  government 
was  prescribed  them;  but  it  is  otherwise  now  under  the  gos- 
pel. The  church  of  Christ  was  but  forming  in  Christ's  own 
time,  and  in  that  of  the  apostles,  in  whose  time  we  read  of 
but  some  cities  and  no  whole  nations  converted  to  the  faith; 
and  therefore  the  same  form  of  government  would  not  serve 
a  church  in  its  first  constitution,  which  is  necessary  for  it 
when  it  is  actually  formed.  A  pastor  and  deacons  might 
serve  the  church  of  a  city  while    believers  were  few,  but 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  207 

cannot  when  they  are  increased  into  many  congregations. 
And  so  proportionably  when  the  church  is  enlarged  to  a 
whole  nation,  there  must  then  be  another  form  of  govern- 
ment. Therefore  they  who  call  for  a  national  church  under 
the  gospel,  let  them  first  show  a  nation  converted  to  the  faith, 
and  we  will  undertake  to  show  the  other.  And  this  is  the 
chief  reason  why  the  church's  polity  is.  so  little  described  in 
the  New  Testament,  because  it  was  then  only  growing;  and 
it  doth  not  stand  to  reason,  that  the  coat  which  was  cut  out 
for  one  in  his  infancy,  must  of  necessity  serve  him  when 
grown  a  man;  which  is  the  argument  of  those  who  will  have 
nothing  observed  in  the  church,  but  what  is  expressed  in 
scripture.  The  apostles  looked  at  the  present  state  of  a 
church  in  appointing  officers,  and  ordered  things  according  to 
the  circumstances  of  them,  which  was  necessary  to  be  done 
in  the  founding  of  a  church;  and  the  reason  of  apostolical 
practice  binds  still,  though  not  the  individual  action,  that  as 
they  regulated  churches  for  the  best  convenience  of  governing 
them,  so  should  the  pastors  of  churches  now.  But  of  this 
largely  afterwards. 

4.  Another  difference  is,  that  the  people  of  the  Jews  lived 
all  under  one  civil  government;  but  it  is  otherwise  with  Chris- 
tians who  live  under  different  forms  of  civil  government. 
And  then  by  the  same  reason  that  in  the  first  institutions  of 
their  ecclesiastical  government  it  was  formed  according  to  the 
civil,  by  the  same  reason,  must  Christians  do  under  the  gos- 
pel, if  the  argument  holds,  that  Christ  must  be  faithful  as 
Moses  was.  And  then  because  Christians  do  live  under  several 
and  distinct  forms  of  civil  government,  they  must  be  bound 
by  the  law  of  Christ,  to  contemper  the  government  of  the 
church  to  that  of  the  state.  And  what  they  have  gained  by 
this  for  their  cause,  who  assert  the  necessity  of  any  one  form 
from  this  argument,  I  see  not;  but  on  the  contrary  this  is 
evident,  that  they  have  destroyed  their  own  principle  by  it. 
For  if  Moses  did  prescribe  a  form  of  government  for  Levi 
agreeable  to  the  form  of  the  commonwealth,  and  Christ  be  as 
faithful  as  Moses  was,  then  Christ  must  likewise  order  the 
government  of  Christian  churches,  according  to  that  of  the 
state,  and  so  must  have  different  forms  as  the  other  hath. 
Thus  much  will  serve  abundantly  to  show  the  weakness  of 
the  argument  drawn  from  the  agreement  of  Christ  and  Moses, 
for  the  proving  any  one  form  of  government  necessary;  but 
this  shall  not  suffice,   I  now  shall,  from  the  abundant  answers 


208  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

to  this  argument,  lay  down  several  that  Christ  did  never  intend 
to  institute  any  one  form  of  government  in  his  church. 

§  4. — 1.  Whatever  binds  the  church  of  God  as  an  institu- 
tion of  Christ,  must  bind  as  an  universal  standing  law;  but 
one  form  of  government  in  the  church  cannot  bind  it  as  a 
standing  law.  For  whatever  binds  as  a  standing  law,  must 
either  be  expressed  in  direct  terms  as  such  a  law;  or  deduced 
by  a  necessary  consequence  from  his  laws,  as  of  an  univer- 
sally binding  nature;  but  any  one  particular  form  of  govern- 
ment in  the  church,  is  neither  expressed  in  any  direct  terms 
by  Christ,  nor  can  be  deduced  by  just  consequence;  therefore 
no  such  form  of  government  is  instituted  by  Christ.  If  there 
be  any  such  law,  it  must  be  produced,  whereby  it  is  deter- 
mined in  scripture,  either  that  there  must  be  superiority  or 
equality  among  church  officers,  as  such,  after  the  apostles' 
decease.  And  though  the  negative  of  a  fact  holds  not,  yet 
the  negative  of  a  law  doth,  else  no  superstition.  I  have  not 
yet  met  with  any  such  produced,  and  therefore  shall  see  what 
consequences  can  be  made  of  a  binding  nature.  To  this  I 
say,  that  no  consequences  can  be  deduced  to  make  an  institu- 
tion, but  only  to  apply  one  to  particular  cases:  because  posi- 
tives are  in  themselves  indifferent  without  institution  and 
divine  appointment:  and  therefore  that  must  be  directly 
brought  for  the  making  a  positive  universally  binding,  which 
it  doth  not  in  its  own  nature.  Now  here  must  be  an  institu- 
tion of  something  merely  positive  supposed,  which  in  itself  is 
of  an  indifferent  nature;  and  therefore  no  consequence  drawn 
can  suffice  to  make  it  unalterably  binding,  without  express 
declaration  that  such  a  thing  shall  so  bind;  for  what  is  not  in 
its  own  nature  moral,  binds  only  by  virtue  of  a  command, 
which  command  must  be  made  known  by  the  will  of  Christ, 
so  that  we  may  understand  its  obligatory  nature.  So  that 
both  a  consequence  must  be  necessarily  drawn,  and  the  obli- 
gation of  what  shall  be  so  drawn  must  be  expressed  in  scrip- 
ture: which  I  despair  of  ever  finding  in  reference  to  any  one 
form  of  government  in  the  church. 

.2.  If  the  standing  laws  for  church  government  be  equally 
applicable  to  several  distinct  forms,  then  no  one  form  is  pre- 
scribed in  scripture;  but  all  the  standing  laws  respecting 
church  government,  are  equally  applicable  to  several  forms. 
All  the  laws  occurring  in  scripture  respecting  church  govern- 
ment may  be  referred  to  these  three  heads.  Such  as  set  down 
the  qualifications  of  the  pet'sons  for  the  office  of  government , 
such  as  require  a  right  management  of  their  office^  and 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  209 

such  as  lay  doivn  rules  for  the  management  of  their  office. 
Now  all  these  are  equally  applicable  to  either  of  these  two 
forms  we  now  discourse  of.   We  begin  then  with  those  which 
set  down  the  qualifications  of  persons  employed  in  govern- 
ment, those  we  have  largely  and  fully  set  down  by  St.  Paul 
in  his  order  to  Timothy'^  and  Titus^  prescribing  what  manner 
of  persons  those  should  be  who  are  to  be  employed  in  the 
government  of  the  church:  "A  bishop  must  be  blameless  as 
the  steward  of  God,  not  self-willed,  not  soon  angry,  not  given 
to  wine,  no  striker,"  &c.     All  these,  and  the  rest  of  the  quali- 
fications mentioned,  are  equally  required  as  necessary  in  a 
bishop,  whether  taken  for  one  of  a  superior  order  above  pres- 
byters, or  else  only  for  a  single  presbyter;  however  that  be,  if 
he  halh  a  hand  in  church  government,  he  must  be  such  a  one 
as  the  apostle  prescribes;  and  so  these  commands  to  Timothy 
and  Titus  given  by  Paul,  do  equally  respect  and  concern 
them,  whether  we  consider  them  as  evangelists  acting  by  an 
extraordinary  commission,  or  as  fixed  pastors  over  all  the 
churches  in  their  several  precincts;  so  that  from  the  commands 
themselves  nothing  can  be  inferred  either  way  to  determine 
the  question;  only  one  place  is  pleaded  for  the  perpetuity  of 
the  office  Timothy  was  employed  in,  which  must  now  be 
examined:  the  place  is,  1  Tim.  6,  13,  14;  "I  give  thee  charge 
in  the  sight  of  God,  &c.  that  thou  keep  this  commandment  with- 
out spot,  unrebukable,  until  the  appearing  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."     From  hence  it  is  argued  thus:  the  commandment 
here  was  the  charge  which  Timothy  had  of  governing  the 
church;  this  Timothy  could  not  keep  personally  till  Christ's 
second  coming;  therefore  there  must  be  a  succession  of  officers 
in  the  same  kind  till  the  second  coming  of  Christ.     But  this  is 
easily  answered.     For,  first,  it  is  no  ways  certain  what  this 
command  was  which  St.  Paul  speaks  of;  some  understand  it 
of  fighting  the  good  fight  of  faith,  others  of  the  precept  of 
love,  others  most  probably  the  sum  of  all  contained  in  this 
epistle,  which  I  confess  implies  in  it,  (as  being  one  great  part 
of  the  epistle,)  PauPs  direction  of  Timothy  for  the  right  dis- 
charging of  his  office;  but,  granting  that  the  command  respects 

Timothy's  office,  yet  I  answer,  secondly,  it  manifestly  appears 
to  be  something  personal,  and  not  successive;   or  at  least 

nothing  can  be  inferred  for  the  necessity  of  such  a  succession 
from  this  place  which  it  was  brought  for:  nothing  being  more 

'  1  Tim.  iii.  I  to  the  8.  2  Titus  i.  5  to  the  10. 

27 


210  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

evident  than  that  this  command  related'to  77moMy'*  personal 
observance  of  it;  and  therefore,  thirdly,  Christ's  appearuig 
here,  is  not  meant  of  his  second  coming  to  jiidi,mient,  but  it 
only  imports  the  time  of  Tiviothy's  deca^^e;^  so  Chrysostom, 
fifXi"'  *«  *>??  Tfs-Kiti^i,  fcexp''  T"'?J  i^o8i,ov,  '"Until  the  end,  until  the 
departure."  So  Estius  understands  it,  usque  ad  exitum  vitas; 
"until  the  termination  of  life;"  and  for  that  end  brings  that 
speech  of  Augustine:  "then  shall  that  day  of  the  advent  of 
the  Lord  overtake  every  one;  when  a  day  shall  come  on  him, 
so  that  such  as  he  is  on  departing  hence,  such  shall  he  be 
judged. "2  And  the  reason  why  the  time  of  his  death  is  set 
out  by  the  coming  of  Christ  is,  tm  naxxov  avtov  hiyn^yi,  as  Chry- 
sostom,d.wA  from  him  Theop/iylact  observes, ''that  it  might 
incite  him  the  more,"  both  to  diligence  in  his  work  and 
patience  under  sufi'erings,  from  the  consideration  of  Christ's 
appearance.  The  plain  meaning  of  the  words  then  is  the 
same  with  that,  Bevel,  ii.  10,  "be  thou  faithful  unto  death,  and 
I  will  thee  a  crown  of  life."  Nothing  then  can  be  hence  in- 
ferred as  to  the  necessary  succession  of  some  in  Timothy's 
office,  Vv'hatever  it  is  supposed  to  be. 

§  5.  Secondly,  The  precepts  of  the  gospel  requiring  a  right 
management  of  the  work,  are  equally  applicable  to  either 
form.  Taking  heed  to  the  flock  over  lohich  God  hath  made 
them  overseers,^  is  equally  a  duty;  whether  hy  flock  we  under- 
stand either  the  particular  church  o(  Ephesus,  or  the  adjacent 
churches  of  Asia;  whether  by  overseers  we  understand  some 
acting  over  others,  or  all  joining  together  in  an  equality.  So 
exhorting,  reproving,  preaching  in  season  and  out  of  season,* 
doing  all  things  avcv  rt^oxpi^atoj,  tvithout  "  rash  censures," 
and  partiality;^  ivatching  over  the  flock  as  they  that  must 
give  an  account:  laying  hands  suddenly  on  no  man:  re- 
buking not  an  elder,  but  under  two  or  three  ivitnesses.'^  And 
whatever  precepts  of  this  nature  we  read  in  the  epistles  of 
Timothy  and  7'itus,  may  be  equally  applicable  to  men  acting 
in  either  of  these  two  forms  of  government:  there  being  no 
precept  occurring  in  all  tliose  epistles  prescribing  to  Timothy y 
whether  he  must  act  only  as  a  consul  in  Senatu  with  the 
consent  of  the  presbytery,  or  whether  by  his  sole  power  he 
should  determine  what  was  the  connnon  interest,  and  concern 

>  Homil.  18,  in  1  Tim.  torn.  4. 

2  Tunc  unicuique  vcniet  dies  advenlfis  Domini,  cum  vencrit  ei  dies,  ut  talis 
hinc  exeat,  qualis  judicandus  est  ilio  die,— Epislol  80,  ad  Hesycb. 

3  Acts  XX.  28.  4  2  Tim.  iv.  2. 

6  1  Tim.  V.  21.  6Hcb.  xiii.  17.    1  Tim.  v.  19, 23. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  211 

of  those  churches  he  was  the  superintendent  over.  Neither 
doth  the  apostle  determine  at  all  in  those  epistles  chiefly  con- 
cerning church  government,  whether  upon  the  removal  of 
Timothy  or  Titus  thence  as  evangelists,  as  some  pretend,  or 
upon  their  death  as  fixed  pastors  and  bishops,  as  others,  any 
should  succeed  them  in  the  power  they  enjoyed,  or  not;  nor 
in  what  manner  the  pastors  of  the  several  churches  should 
order  things  of  common  concernment.  Which  would  seem 
to  be  a  strange  omission,  were  either  of  these  two  forms  so 
necessary,  taken  exclusively  of  the  other,  as  both  parties  seem 
to  affirm.  For  we  cannot  conceive  but  if  the  being  and  right 
constitution  of  a  church  did  depend  upon  the  manner  of  the 
governors  acting  in  it,  but  that  care  which  Paul  had  over  all 
the  churches  would  have  prompted  him,  (especially  being 
assisted  and  guided  by  an  infallible  spirit  in  the  penning  those 
epistles.)  to  have  laid  down  some  certain  rules  for  the  acting 
of  the  pastors  of  the  churches  after  the  departure  of  Timothy 
and  Titus.  Considering  especially  that  the  epistles  then  writ- 
ten by  him,  were  to  be  of  standing  perpetual  use  in  the  church 
of  God;  and  by  which  the  churches  in  after  ages  were  to  be 
guided  as  well  as  those  that  were  then  in  being.  The  apostle 
in  both  epistles  takes  care  for  a  succession  of  pastors  in  those 
churches:  Timothy  is  charged  to  commit  the  things  he  had 
heard  of  Paul  to  faithful  men;  who  shall  be  fit  to  teach 
others.^  Had  it  not  been  as  requisite  to  have  charged  him  to 
have  committed  his  power  of  government  to  men  fit  for  that, 
had  the  apostles  looked  on  the  form  of  government  to  be  as 
necessary  as  the  office  of  preaching?  Pa^^/saith,  he  left  Titus 
in  Crete,  on  purpose  to  settle  the  churches  and  ordain  pres- 
byters in  every  city?  had  it  not  been  as  necessary  to  have 
showed  in  what  order  the  churches  must  be  settled,  and  what 
power  did  belong  to  those  presbyters,  and  how  they  should 
act  in  the  governing  their  churches,  had  he  thought  the  con- 
stitution of  the  churches  did  depend  upon  the  form  of  their 
acting?  We  see  here  then,  that  St.  Paul  doth  not  express 
anything  necessarily  inferring  any  one  constant  form  to  be 
used  in  the  church  of  God.  And  whence  can  we  infer  any 
necessity  of  it,  but  from  the  scriptures  laying  it  down  as  a 
duty  that  such  a  form  and  no  other  there  must  be  used  in  the 
church  of  God?  For  all  that  we  can  see  then  by  PauVs 
direction  for  church  government,  (when  if  ever,  this  should 
have  been  expressed,)  it  was  left  to  the  Christian  wisdom  and 

1  2  Tim.  ii.  2.  2  Titus  i.  5. 


212  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

prudence  of  the  churches  of  Ephesus  and  Crete  to  consult  and 
determine  in  what  manner  the  government  of  their  churches 
should  be  provided  for,  on  the  departure  of  Timothy  and 
Titus  from  them. 

§  6.  But  here  it  will  be  soon  replied,  that  though  nothing 
be  expressed  in  PauPs  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  yet 
PauVs  appointing  Timothy  and  Titus  over  those  churches, 
did  determine  the  form,  of  government,  and  they  were  en- 
trusted luith  a  poiuer  to  provide  for  future  governors  after 
them. 

To  this  I  answer:  First,  The  superiority  which  Timothy 
and  Titus  had  over  those  churches,  doth  not  prove  that  form 
of  government  necessary  in  all  churches;  I  dispute  not  whether 
they  were  evangelists  or  not,  or  acted  as  such  in  that  supe- 
riority, (of  that  afterwards,)  it  is  evident  they  might  be  so: 
there  being  no  convincing  argument  to  the  contrary.     And 
the  bare  possibility  of  the  truth  of  the  negative,  destroys  the 
necessity  of  the  affirmative  of  a  proposition.     As,  Si  possibile 
est,  hominem  non  esse  animal,  "  if  it  be  possible  that  man  is 
not  an  animal,"  then  that  proposition  is  false,  Necesse  est 
hominem  esse  animal,  "  but  man  is  necessarily  an  animal." 
For,  Necesse  est  esse,  and  Non  possibile  est  non  esse,  "  it  is 
necessary  to  be,  and  it  is  not  possible  not  to  be,"  being  sequi- 
pollents  on  the  one  side;  and  Possibile  est  non  esse,  Et  non 
necesse  est  esse,  "  It  is  possible  not  to  be,  and  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  be,"  being  sequipollents  on  the  other;  Possibile  est 
non  esse,  "  It  is  possible  not  to  be,"  must  be  contradictory  to 
Necesse  est  esse,  "  It  is  necessary  to  be,"  as  Non  possibile  est 
non  esse,  is  to  Non  necesse  est  esse,  "  It  is  not  possible  not  to 
be,"  is  to  "  it  is  not  necessary  to  be."     So  that  if  only  the 
possibility  of  their  acting  as  evangelists,  that  is,  by  an  extra- 
ordinary commission,  be  evinced,  which  I  know  none  will 
deny;   the  necessity  of  their  acting  as  fixed  bishops  is  de- 
stroyed, and  consequently  the  necessity  of  the  continuance  of 
their  office  too,  which  depends  upon  the  former.     For  if  they 
acted  not  as  bishops,  nothing  can  be  drawn  from  their  example 
necessarily  enforcing  the  continuance  of  the  superiority  which 
they  enjoyed.     But  though   nothing   can   be   inferred  from 
hence  as  to  the  necessity  of  that  office  to  continue  in  the 
church,  which   Timothy   and   Titus  were  invested  in;   yet 
from  the  superiority  of  the  power  which  they  enjoyed  over 
those  churches,  whether  as  evangelists,  or  as  fixed  bishops, 
these  two  things  may  be  inferred.    First,  That  the  superiority 
of  some  church  officers  over  others,  is  not  contrary  to  the  rule 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  213 

of  the  gospel:  for  all  parties  acknowledge  the  superiority  of 
their  power  above  the  presbyters  of  the  several  cities;  only 
the  continuance  of  this  power  is  disputed  by  many.     But  if 
they  had  any  such  power  at  all,  it  is  enough  for  my  present 
design,  viz,  that  such  a  superiority  is  not  contrary  to  the  gos- 
pel rule:  or  that  the  nature  of  the  government  of  the  church 
doth  not  imply  a  necessary  equality  among  the  governors  of 
it.     Secondly,  Hence  I  infer,  that  it  is  not  repugnant  to  the 
constitution  of  churches  in  apostolical  times,  for  men  to  have 
power  over  more  than  one  particular  congregation.     For  such 
a  power  Timothy  and  Titus  had,  which  had  it  been  contrary 
to  the  nature  of  the  regiment  of  churches,  we  should  never 
have  read  of  in  the  first  planted  churches.     So  that  if  those 
popular  arguments  of  a  necessary  relation  between  a  pastor 
and  particular  people,  of  personal  knowledge,  care  and  in- 
spection, did  destroy  the  lawfulness  of  extending  that  care 
and  charge  to   many  particular  congregations,  they  would 
likewise  overthrow  the  nature,  end  and  design  of  the  office 
which  Timothy  and   Titus  acted  in:  which  had  a  relation 
to   a  multitude  of  particular   and  congregational  churches. 
Whether  their  power  was  extraordinary  or  not,  I  now  do  not 
dispute;  but  whether  such  a  power  be  repugnant  to  the  gos- 
pel or  not;  which  from  their  practice  is  evident  that  it  is  not. 
But  then  others  who  would  make  this  office  necessary,  urge 
further,  that  Timothy  or   Titus  might  ordain  and  appoint 
others  to  succeed  them  in  their  places  and  care  overall  those 
churches  under   their  charge.     To    which  I   answer.  First, 
What  they  might  do  is  not  the  question,  but  what  they  did,  as 
they  might  do  it;  so  they  might  not  do  it,  if  no  other  evidence 
be  brought  to  prove  it:  for,  Quod  possibile  est  esse,  possihile 
est  non  esse,  "  What  is  possible  to  be,  is  possible  not  to  be." 
Secondly,  Neither  what  they  did,  is  the  whole  question,  but 
what  they  did  with  an  opinion  of  the  necessity  of  doing  it, 
whether  they  were  bound  to  do  it  or  not?  and  if  so,  whether 
by  any  law  extant  in  scripture,  and  given  them  by  Paul  in 
his  epistles,  or  some  private  command  and  particular  instruc- 
tions when  he  deputed  them  to  their  several  charges:  if  the 
former,  that  law  and  command  must  be  produced,  which  will 
hardly  be,  if  we  embrace  only  the  received  canon  of  the  scrip- 
ture.    If  the  latter,  we  must  then  fetch  some  standing  rule 
and  law  from  unwritten  traditions;  for  no  other  evidence  can 
be  given  of  the  instructions  by  word  of  mouth,  given  by  Paul 
to  Timothy  and  Titus  at  the  taking  their  charges  upon  them. 
But  yet   Thirdly,  Were  it  only  the  matter  of  fact  that  was 


214  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

disputed,  that  would  hold  a  controversy  still,  viz.  Whether 
any  did  succeed  Timothy  and  Titus  in  their  offices:  but  this 
I  shall  leave  to  its  proper  place  to  be  discussed,  when  I  come 
to  examine  the  argument  from  apostolical  succession.  Thus 
we  see  then  that  neither  the  qualification  of  the  persons,  nor 
the  commands  for  a  right  exercise  of  the  office  committed  to 
them,  nor  the  whole  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  do  deter- 
mine any  one  form  of  government  to  be  necessary  in  the 
church  of  God. 

§  7.  Thirdly,  Let  us  see  whether  the  general  rules  do  re- 
quire any  one  form;  which  rules  in  that  they  are  general,  can 
determine  nothing  of  the  authority  itself  as  to  its  particular 
mode,  being  intended  only  for  the  regulation  of  the  exercise 
of  the  authority  in  which  men  are  placed.  And  it  is  an  evi- 
dence that  nothing  is  particularly  determined  in  this  case, 
when  the  Spirit  of  God  only  lays  down  such  rules  for  govern- 
ment which  are  applicable  to  distinct  forms.  Otherwise,  cer- 
tainly some  rule  would  have  been  laid  down,  which  could 
have  been  applied  to  nothing  but  to  that  one  form.  That 
none  take  the  office  of  preaching  tvithout  a  call,  nor  go 
without  sending,^  will  equally  hold  whether  the  power  of 
ordination  lie  in  a  bishop  with  presbyters,  or  in  presbyters 
acting  with  equality  of  power;  That  offenders  he  censured, 
and  complaints  made  to  the  church  in  case  of  scandal,  de- 
termines nothing  to  whom  the  power  of  jurisdiction  doth 
solely  belong,  nor  what  that  church  is  which  must  receive 
these  complaints.  That  all  things  be  done  with  decency  and 
order,  doth  prescribe  nothing  wherein  that  decency  lies,  nor 
how  far  that  order  may  extend;  nor  yet  who  must  be  the 
judges  of  that  decency  and  order.  That  all  he  done  for  edi- 
fication, and- the  common  benefit  of  the  church,  doth  no 
ways  restrain  his  church's  freedom  in  disposing  of  itself  as  to 
the  form  of  its  government,  so  the  aim  of  the  church  be  for 
the  better  edification  of  the  body  of  the  church,  and  to  pro- 
mote the  benefit  of  it.  But  methinks,  these  general  orders 
and  rules  for  discipline  do  imply  the  particular  manner  of 
government  to  be  left  at  liberty  to  the  church  of  God,  so  that 
in  all  the  several  forms  these  general  rules  be  observed. 
Whereas  had  Christ  appointed  a  superior  order  to  govern 
other  subordinate  officers  and  the  church  together;  Christ's 
command  for  governing  the  church  would  have  been  particu- 
larly addressed  to  them:  and  again,  had  it  been  the  will  of 

•  Heb.  V.  2;  Rom.  x.  14. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  215 

Christ  there  should  be  no  superior  order  above  the  pastors  of 
particular  churches,  there  would  have  been  some  express  and 
direct  prohibition  oi'  it;  which  because  we  nowhere  read,  it 
seems  evident  that  Christ  hath  left  both  the  one  and  the  other 
to  the  freedom  and  liberty  of  his  church.  So  much  shall 
serve  in  this  place  to  show  how  improbable  it  is  that  Christ 
did  ever  prescribe  any  one  form  of  government  in  his  clnu'ch, 
since  he  hath  only  laid  down  general  rales  for  the  manage- 
ment of  church  government. 

§  S.  But  this  will  not  yet  suffice  those,  who  plead  that 
Christ  must  determine  one  immutable  form  of  government  in 
his  church:  but  although  it  be  a  high  presumption  to  deter- 
mine first  what  Christ  must  do,  before  we  examine  what  he 
hath  done,  yet  we  shall  still  proceed  and  examine  all  the  pre- 
tences that  are  brought  for  this  opinion.  The  next  thing, 
then,  which  is  generally  urged  for  it,  is  "  the  equal  necessity 
of  Christ's  instituting  a  certain  form  as  for  any  other  legislator 
who  models  a  commonwealth."  Now  for  answer  to  this,  I  say 
first,  that  Christ  hath  instituted  such  an  immutable  govern- 
ment in  his  church,  as  is  sufficient  for  the  succession  and  con- 
tinuance of  it,  which  is  all  which  founders  of  commonwealths 
do  look  after,  viz.  that  there  be  such  an  order  and  distinction 
of  persons,  and  subordination  of  one  to  the  other,  that  a  society 
may  still  be  preserved  among  them;  now  this  is  sufficiently 
provided  for  by  Christ's  appointing  officers  continually  to  rule 
his  church,  and  establishing  laws  for  the  perpetuating  of  such 
officers;  so  whatsoever  is  necessary  in  order  to  the  general 
ends  of  government,  is  acknowledged  to  be  appointed  by  Jesus 
Christ.  Until,  then,  that  it  be  proved  that  one  form  of  go- 
vernment is  in  itself  absolutely  necessary  for  the  being  of  a 
church,  this  argument  can  prove  nothing;  for  what  is  drawn 
from  necessity,  will  prove  nothing  but  in  a  case  of  necessity. 
Secondly,  I  answer,  that  those  things  which  are  not  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  being  of  a  church,  are  left  to  Christ's  liberty, 
whether  he  will  determine  them  or  not;  and  are  no  further  to 
be  looked  on  as  necessary  than  as  he  hath  determined  by  his 
laws  whether  they  shall  be  or  not,  in  his  church.  The  thing 
will  be  thus  cleared.  When  I  read  that  Zalexicxis,  Lycurgus, 
or  Niima,  did  form  a  commonwealth  and  make  laws  for  it,  I 
presently  conclude  that  there  must  be  some  order  or  distinction 
of  persons  in  this  commonwealth,  and  some  rules  whereby 
persons  must  be  governed,  and  whereby  others  must  rule;  but 
I  cannot  hence  infer  that  Zaleiicus  or  Lycurgus  did  institute 
monarchical,  aristocratical,  or  democratical  government,  be- 


216  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

cause  any  of  these  forms  might  be  agreeable  to  their  design; 
and  therefore  what  kind  of  government  they  did  appoint,  can 
no  otherwise  be  known  than  by  taking  a  view  of  the  laws 
which  they  made  in  order  thereto.  So  it  is  in  reference  to 
Christ;  when  we  read  that  Christ  hath  instituted  a  church 
always  to  continue  in  the  world,  we  presently  apprehend  that 
there  must  be  some  power  and  order  in  the  members  of  that 
society,  and  laws  for  the  governing  it:  but  we  cannot  hence 
gather  that  he  hath  bound  up  his  officers  to  act  in  any  one 
form,  because  several  forms  might  in  themselves  equally  tend 
to  the  promoting  the  end  of  government  in  his  church.  And 
therefore  what  Christ  hath  expressly  determined  in  his  posi- 
tive laws,  must  be  our  rule  of  judging  in  this  case,  and  not 
any  presumption  of  our  own,  that  such  a  form  was  necessary, 
and  therefore  Christ  must  institute  and  appoint  it;  which  is 
fully  expressed  by  judicious  Mr.  Hooker,^  whose  words  will 
serve  as  a  sufficient  answer  to  this  objection.  "As  for  those 
marvellous  discourses,  whereby  they  adventure  to  argue  that 
God  must  needs  have  done  the  thing  which  they  imagine  was 
to  be  done;  I  must  confess  I  have  often  wondered  at  their  ex- 
ceeding boldness  herein.  When  the  question  is,  whether  God 
has  delivered  in  scripture,  (as  they  affirm  he  hath,)  a  complete 
particular  immutable  form  of  church  polity,  why  take  they 
that  other,  both  presumptuous  and  superfluous  labour,  to 
prove  he  should  have  done  it:  there  being  no  way  in  this 
case  to  prove  the  deed  of  God,  saving  only  by  producing  that 
evidence  wherein  he  hath  done  it?  But  if  there  be  no  such 
thing  apparent  upon  record,  they  do  as  if  one  should  demand 
a  legacy,  by  force  and  virtue  of  some  written  testament, 
wherein  there  being  no  such  thing  specified,  he  pleadeth  that 
there  it  must  needs  be,  and  bringeth  arguments  from  the  love 
and  good  will  which  always  the  testator  bore,  imagining  that 
these  or  the  like  proofs  will  convict  a  testament  to  have  that 
in  it,  which  other  men  can  nowhere  by  reading  find.  In 
matters  which  concern  the  actions  of  God,  the  most  dutiful 
way  on  our  part,  is,  to  search  what  God  hath  done,  and  with 
meekness  to  admire  that,  rather  than  to  dispute  what  he  in 
congruity  of  reason  ought  to  do."  Thus  he,  with  more  to  the 
same  purpose.  The  sum,  then,  of  the  answer  to  this  argu- 
ment, is  this,  that  nothing  can  be  inferred  of  what  Christ  must 
do,  from  his  relation  to  his  church,  but  what  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  being  of  it;  as  for  all  other  things,  they  being 

'  Ecclesiast.  Polity,  lib.  iii.  sect.  2. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  217 

arbitrary  constitutions,  we  can  judge  no  more  of  the  necessity 
of  them,  than  as  we  find  them  clearly  revealed  in  the  Word 
of  God.  And  therefore  the  plea  must  be  removed  from  what 
Christ  must  do,  to  what  he  hath  done,  in  order  to  the  deter- 
mining the  particular  form  of  government  in  his  church. 

§  9.  But  still  it  is  argued  for  the  necessity  of  a  particular 
form  of  government  in  the  church  from  the  simihtudes  the 
church  is  set  out  by  in  scripture;  it  is  called  «Vine,  a?id 
therefore  must  have  keepers;  an  house,  and  therefore  7nust 
have  government;  a  city,  and  therefore  inust  have  a  polity; 
a  body,  and  therefore  must  have  parts.^  I  answer,  First,  all 
these  similitudes  prove  only  that  which  none  deny,  that  there 
must  be  order,  power,  and  government  in  the  church  of  God; 
we  take  not  away  the  keepers  from  the  vine,  nor  the  govern- 
ment from  the  house,  nor  polity  from  the  city,  nor  distinction 
of  parts  from  the  body;  we  assert  all  these  things  as  necessary 
in  the  chnrch  of  God.  The  keepers  of  the  vine  to  defend  and 
prime  it;  the  governors  of  the  house  to  rule  and  order  it;  the 
polity  of  the  city  to  guide  and  direct  it;  the  parts  of  the  body 
to  complete  and  adorn  it.  But  Secondly,  none  of  these  simi- 
litudes prove  what  they  are  brought  for;  viz.  that  any  one 
immutable  form  of  government  is  determined.  For  may  not 
the  keepers  of  the  vine  use  their  own  discretion  in  looking  to 
it,  so  the  flourishing  of  the  vine  be  what  they  aim  at?  and  if 
there  be  many  of  them,  may  there  not  be  different  orders 
among  them,  and  some  as  supervisors  of  the  others'  work? 
The  house  must  have  governors;  but  those  that  are  so,  are 
entrusted  with  the  power  of  ordering  things  in  the  house  ac- 
cording to  their  own  discretion;  and  where  there  is  a  multi- 
tude, is  there  not  diversity  of  offices  among  them?  and  is  it 
necessary  that  every  house  must  have  offices  of  the  same 
kind?  In  great  and  large  families  there  must  be  more  par- 
ticular distinct  orders  and  offices,  than  in  a  small  and  little 
one.  The  city  must  have  its  polity;  but  all  cities  have  not 
the  like;  some  have  one  form,  and  some  another,  and  yet 
there  is  a  city  still  and  a  polity  too.  A  body  must  have  all 
its  parts;  but  are  all  the  parts  of  the  body  equal  one  to  an- 
other? it  sufficeth  that  there  be  a  proportion,  though  not 
equality  in  them:  the  several  parts  of  the  body  have  their 
several  offices,  and  yet  we  see  the  head  is  superintendent 
over  them  all:  and  thus  if  we  make  every  particular  church 
a  body,  yet  it  follows  not  that  the  form  of  clothing  that  body 

1  Parker  de  Polit.  Eccles.  lib.  2,  c.  40. 
28 


218  THE  DIVINE  EIGHT  OF 

must  always  be  the  same;  for  the  manner  of  government  is 
rather  the  clothing  to  the  body  than  the  parts  of  it;  the  gover- 
nors indeed  are  parts  of  the  body,  but  their  manner  of 
governing  is  not,  that  may  alter  according  to  the  proportion 
and  growth  of  the  body,  and  its  fashion  change  for  better 
convenience. 

§  10.  But  if  these  similitudes  prove  nothing,  yet  cer- 
tainly, say  they,  the  difference  as  to  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
government  ivill;  for  though  there  may  be  different  forms 
in  civil  government,  which  are  therefore  called  an  ordinance 
of  man;^  yet  there  must  he  hut  one  in  church  government, 
which  is  an  ordinance  of  God,  and  Christ  hath  appointed 
offcers  to  rule  it.  I  answer, ^r^^,  we  grant  and  acknowledge 
a  difference  between  the  church  and  the  commonwealth,  they 
are  constituted  for  other  ends;  the  one  political,  the  other 
spiritual;  one  temporal,  the  other  eternal;  they  subsist  by 
different  charters;  the  one  given  to  men  as  men,  the  other  to 
men  as  Christians.  They  act  upon  different  principles;  the 
one  to  preserve  civil  rights,  the  other  to  promote  an  eternal 
interest;  nay,  their  formal  constitution  is  different;  for  a  man 
by  being  a  member  of  a  commonwealth  doth  not  become 
a  member  of  the  church,  and  by  being  excommunicated  out 
of  the  church,  doth  not  cease  to  be  a  member  of  the  com- 
monwealth. The  officers  of  the  one  are  clearly  distinct  from 
the  other,  the  one  deriving  their  power  from  the  law  of 
Christ,  the  other  from  God's  general  providence:  the  magis- 
trate hath  no  power  to  excommunicate  formally  out  of  the 
church  any  more  than  to  admit  into  it,  nor  have  the  church 
officers  any  power  to  cast  men  out  of  the  commonwealth. 
We  see  then  there  is  a  difference  between  civil  and  ecclesias- 
tical government.  But  then  I  answer.  Secondly,  the  power 
of  the  magistrate  is  not  therefore  called  an  ordinance  of  man, 
because  of  the  mutability  of  its  form,  and  as  distinguished 
from  the  form  of  church  government.  For,  First,  the  apostle 
speaks  not  of  the  form  of  government,  but  of  the  power: 
Submit  to  every  ordinance  of  man,  <§*c.;  the  ground  of  sub- 
mission is  not  the  form,  but  the  power  of  civil  government; 
and  therefore  there  can  be  no  opposition  expressed  here  be- 
tween the  forms  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  government;  but  if 
any  such  opposition  be,  it  must  be  between  the  powers;  and 
if  this  be  said  as  to  civils,  that  the  power  is  an  ordinance  of 
man  in  that  sense,  (whereas  Paul  saith  it  is  of  God,^)  yet  as 

'  1  Pet.  ii.  13.  2  Rom.  xiii.  1. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  219^ 

to  the  church  it  is  freely  acknowledged  that  the  power  is  de- 
rived from  God.  Secondly,  the  civil  power  is  not  called 
ave^i^Tiivri  x7(.tftj,  "a  human  institution,"  because  it  is  a  creature 
of  man's  making,  and  so  subject  to  men's  power;  but  the 
ground  of  that  speech  is,  because  all  civil  power  respects  men 
as  men,  without  any  further  connotation.  "  It  is  called 
human,  not  because  it  was  devised  by  man,  but  because  it  is 
peculiar  to  man,"  saith  Beza}  And  to  the  same  purpose 
Calvin,^  '-'li  is  called  human  administration,  not  on  account 
of  its  being  invented  by  men,  but  because  it  hath  been  ap- 
pointed, and  put  in  order,  as  a  method  of  life  peculiar  to 
man."  Piscator,^  "he  calls  it  human,  not  because  the  magis- 
tracy hath  men  for  its  authors,  but  because  they  exercise  it." 
So  then  the  civil  power  is  not  called  an  ordinance  of  man,  as 
it  is  of  man's  setting  up,  but  as  it  is  proper  to  man;  and  so  if 
there  be  any  opposition  between  the  civil  and  church  power, 
it  is  only  this,  that  the  one  belongs  to  men  as  men,  the  other 
to  men  as  Christians.  Thirdly,  although  it  be  granted  that 
Christ  hath  appointed  and  set  up  his  own  officers  in  his 
church;  yet  it  doth  not  thence  follow  that  he  hath  determined 
in  what  manner  they  shall  rule  his  church.  It  is  true,  Christ 
hath  set  up  in  his  church,  some  apostles,  some  evangelists, 
and  some  pastors  and  teachers:'^  but  it  doth  not  thence  fol- 
low, that  Christ  hath  determined,  whether  the  power  of 
apostles  and  evangelists  should  continue  in  his  church  or  not, 
as  it  implied  superiority  over  the  ordinary  pastors  of  the 
churches;  nor  whether  the  pastors  of  the  church  should  act  in 
an  equality  in  their  governing  churches.  I  grant,  that  all 
church  government  must  be  performed  by  officers  of  Christ's 
appointing,  but  that  which  I  say  is  not  determined  in  scrip- 
ture, is^  the  way  and  manner  whereby  they  shall  govern 
churches  in  common. 

§  11.  It  is  yet  further  argued,*  That  if  the  form  of  church 
government  be  not  immulahly  determined  in  scripture,  then 
it  is  in  the  church^ s  power  to  make  new  officers  which  Christ 
never  made,  ivhich  must  be  a  plain  addition  to  the  laws  of 
Christ,  and  must  argue  the  scripture  of  imperfection.     This 

'  Humana  dicitur,  non  quod  ab  hominibus  sit  excogitata,  sed  quod  hominum 
sit  propria. 

2  Huraana  dicitur  ordinatio,  non  quod  humanittis  inventa  fuerit;  sed  quod 
propria  hominum  est  digesta  et  ordinata  vivendi  ratio. 

3  Humanam  appellat,  non  quod  magistratus  homines  authores  habeat,  sed 
quod  homines  eam  gerant. 

•*  Ephes.  iv.  12. 

5  Parker  Polit.  Eccles.  1.  2,  cap.  45,  s.  6. 


220  THE  DIVINE   RIGHT  OP 

being  one  of  the  main  arguments,  I  have  reserved  it  to  the 
place  of  the  Triarii^  and  shall  now  examine  what  strength 
there  lies  in  it.     To  this,  therefore,  I  answer,  First,  Those 
officers  are  only  said  to  be  new,  which  were  never  appointed 
by  Christ,  and  are  contrary  to  the  first  appointments  of  Christ 
for  the  regulating  of  his  church;  such,  it  is  granted,  the  church 
hath  no  power  to  institute:  but  if  by  new  officers  be  meant 
only  such  as  have  a  charge  over  more  than  one  particular 
congregation  by  the  consent  of  the  pastors  themselves,  then  it 
is  evident  such  an  office  cannot  be  said  to  be  new.     For,  be- 
sides the  general  practice  of  the  church  of  God,  from  the  first 
primitive  times,  which  have  all  consented  in  the  use  of  such 
oflicers,  we  find  the  foundation  of  this  power  laid  by  Christ 
himself  in  the  power  which  the  apostles  were  invested  in, 
which  was  extended  over  many,  both  churches  and  pastors. 
But  if  it  be  said,  The  apostolical  power  being  extraordinary , 
inust   cease  icith  the  persons  who   enjoyed  it:    1  answer. 
First,  What  was  extraordinary  did  cease;  but  all  the  dispute 
is,  what  was  extraordinary  and  what  not;  some  things  were 
ordinary  in  them,  as  preaching,  baptizing,  ordaining,  ruling 
churches;  some  things  were  again  extraordinary,  as  imme- 
diate mission  from  Christ,  (the  main  distinguishing  note  of  an 
apostle,)  a  power  of  working  miracles  to  confirm  the  truth  of 
what  they  preached.  Now  the  question  is,  whether  the  power 
which  they  enjoyed  over  presbyters  and  churches,  be  to  be 
reckoned  in  the  first  or  the  second  number.     It  must,  there- 
fore, be  proved  to  be  extraordinary,  before  it  can  be  said  to 
cease  with  them,  and  that  must  be  done  by  some  arguments 
proper  to  their  persons;  for  if  the  arguments  brought  be  of  a 
common  and  moral  nature,  it  will  prove  the  office  to  be  so  too. 
Secondly,  By  ceasing  may  be  meant  either  ceasing  as  to  its 
necessity,  or  ceasing  as  to  its  lawfulness.     I  say  not  but  that 
the  necessity  of  the  office,  as  in  their  persons,  for  the  first 
preaching  and  propagating  the  gospel,  did  cease  with  them; 
but,  that  after  their  death  it  became  iinlaivful  iov  diwy  particu- 
lar persons  to  take  the  care  and  charge  of  diocesan  churches,  I 
deny.     For  to  make  a  thing  unlawful  which  was  before  law- 
ful, there  must  be  some  express  prohibition  forbidding  any 
further  use  of  such  a  power,  which  I  suppose  men  will  not 
easily  produce  in  the  word  of  God. 

§  12.  I  answer,  therefore,  5eco7z^//y,  That  the  extending  of 
any  ministerial  power,  is  not  the  appointing  of  any  new  office; 

'  Old  soldiers  set  in  the  rear  as  a  reserve. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  221 

because  every  minister  of  the  gospel  hath  a  relation  in  actu 
prima,  "  in  the  first  act,  or  stage,"  to  the  whole  church  of 
God:  the  restraint  and  enlargement  of  which  power  is  subject 
to  positive  determinations  of  prudence  and  conveniency  in 
actu  seciindo,  "  in  the  second  act;"  and,  therefore,  if  the  church 
see  it  fit  for  some  men  to  have  this  power  enlarged  for  better 
government  in  some,  and  restrained  in  others,  thai  enlargement 
is  the  appointing  no  new  oftice,  but  the  making  use  of  a  power 
already  enjoyed  for  the  benefit  of  the  church  of  God.  Tiiis 
being  a  foundation  tending  so  fully  to  clear  the  lawfulness  of 
that  government  in  the  church  which  implies  a  superiority  and 
subordination  of  the  officers  of  the  church  to  one  another:  and 
the  church's  using  her  prudence  in  ordering  the  bounds  of  her 
officers,  I  shall  do  these  two  things.  First,  Show  that  the 
power  of  every  minister  of  the  gospel  doth  primarily  and  ha- 
bitually respect  the  church  in  common.  Secondly,  That  the 
church  may,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  single  out  some  of  its  offi- 
cers for  the  due  administration  of  ecclesiastical  power.  First, 
That  every  minister  of  the  gospel  hath  a  power  respecting  the 
church  in  common.  This  I  find  fully  and  largely  proved  by 
those  who  assert  the  equality  of  the  power  of  ministers:  First, 
from  Christ's  bestowing  the  several  offices  of  the  church,  for 
the  use  of  the  whole  church,  Ephesians  iv.  12,  13.  Christ 
hath  set  apostles,  &c.,  pastors  and  teachers  in  his  church;^  now 
this  church  must  needs  be  the  catholic^  visible  church,  because 
indisputably  the  apostles'  office  did  relate  thereto,  and  con- 
sequently so  must  that  of  pastors  and  teachers  too.  Again, 
the  end  of  these  offices  is  the  building  up  the  body  of  Christ, 
which  cannot  otherwise  be  understood  than  of  his  whole 
church:  else  Christ  must  have  as  many  bodies  as  the  church 
hath  particular  congregations,  which  is  a  new  way  of  cons ub- 
stantiation.  Secondly,  The  ministerial  office  was  in  being 
before  any  particular  congregations  were  gathered:  for  Christ, 
upon  his  ascension  to  glory,  gave  these  gifts  to  menf  and  the 
apostles  were  empowered  by  Christ  before  his  ascension. 
Either,  then,  they  were  no  church  officers,  or  if  they  were  so, 
they  could  have  no  other  correlatives,  but  the  whole  body  of 
the  church  of  God,  then  lying  under  the  power  of  darkness,  a 
few  persons  excepted.  Thirdly,  Because  the  main  design  of 
appointing  a  gospel  ministry  was  the  conversion  of  heathens 

'  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  29. 

2  In  the  generic  sense,  universal,  from  xaSoXof,  the  wliole,or  all,  and  not  in  its 
special  sense,  as  usur|)ed  by  the  Romanists. 

3  Eph,  iv.  8;  Matth.  xxviii.  19. 


222  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

and  infidels:  and  if  these  be  the  proper  object  of  the  ministe- 
rial function,  then  the  office  must  liave  reference  to  the  whole 
church  of  Christ;  else  there  could  be  no  part  of  that  office  per- 
formed towards  those  who  are  not  yet  converted.  Fourthly, 
Else  a  minister  can  perform  no  otiice  belonging  to  him  as  such 
beyond  the  bounds  of  his  particular  congregation,  and  so  can 
neither  preach  nor  administer  the  sacraments  to  any  other  but 
within  the  bounds  of  his  own  particular  place  and  people. 
Fifthly,  Because  ministers  by  baptizing  do  admit  men  into 
the  catliolic  visible  church,  (else  a  man  must  be  baptized  again 
every  time  he  removes  from  one  church  to  another,)  and  none 
can  admit  beyond  what  their  office  doth  extend  to;  therefore 
it  is  evident  that  every  particular  pastor  of  a  church  hath  a 
relation  to  the  whole  church;  to  which  purpose  our  former 
observation  is  of  great  use,  viz.  that  particular  congregations 
are  not  of  God's  jjriinary  intention,  but  for  men^s  conve- 
niency,  and  so  consequently  is  the  fixedness  of  particular 
pastors  to  their  several  places  for  the  greater  conveniency  of 
the  church:  every  pastor  of  a  church  then  hath  a  relation  to 
the  whole  church;  and  that  which  hinders  him  from  the  exer- 
cise of  this  power,  is  not  any  unlawfulness  in  the  thing,  but 
the  preserving  of  order  and  conveniency  in  the  church  of  God. 
This  being  premised,  I  say,  Secondly,  That  the  officers  of  the 
church  may  in  a  peculiar  manner  attribute  a  larger  and  more 
extensive  power  to  some  particular  persons  for  the  more  con- 
venient exercise  of  their  common  power.  We  have  seen 
already  that  their  power  extends  to  the  care  of  the  churches 
in  common,  that  the  restramt  of  this  power  is  a  matter  of 
order  and  decency  in  the  church  of  God.  Now  in  matters  of 
common  concern,  without  all  question  it  is  not  unlawful  when 
the  church  judgeth  it  most  for  edification,  to  grant  to  some  the 
executive  part  of  that  power,  which  is  originally  and  funda- 
mentally common  to  them  all.  For  our  better  understanding 
of  this,  we  must  consider  a  twofold  power  belonging  to  church 
officers,  a  power  of  order,  and  a  poiver  of  jurisdiction;  for  in 
every  7jre,s6?//er,  there  are  some  things  inseparably  joined  to 
his  function,  and  belonging  to  every  one  in  his  personal  capa- 
city, both  in  actu  primo  and  in  actu  secundo,  both  as  to  the 
right  and  power  to  do  it,  and  the  exercise  and  execution  of 
that  power;  such  are  preaching  the  word,  visiting  the  sick, 
administering  sacraments,  &c.  But  there  are  other  things 
which  every  presbyter  hath  an  aptitude,  and  Vijus  to,  in  actu 
primo,  but  the  limitation  and  exercise  of  that  power  doth  be- 
long to  the  church  in  conunon,  and  belongs  not  to  any  one 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  223 

personally,  but  by  a  further  power  of  choice  or  delegation  to 
it;  such  is  the  power  of  visiting  churches,  taking  care  that  par- 
ticular pastors  discharge  their  duty;  such  is  the  power  of  or- 
dination and  church  censures,  and  making  rules  for  decency 
in  the  church;  this  is  what  we  call  the  poiver  uf  jwnsdiction. 
Now  this  latter  power,  though  it  belongs  habitually  and  in 
actu  primo  to  every  presbyter;  yet  being  about  matters  of 
public  and  common  concern,  some  further  autJiority  in  a 
church  constituted  is  necessary,  besides  the  power  of  order; 
and  when  this  power,  either  by  consent  of  the  pastors  of  the 
church,  or  by  the  appointment  of  a  Christian  magistrate,  or 
both,  is  devolved  to  some  particular  persons,  though  quoad 
apiitudineTn,  "as  to  fitness,"  the  power  remains  in  every 
presbyter,  yet  quoad  exectitionem,  "  as  to  execution,"  it  be- 
longs to  those  who  are  so  appointed.  And  therefore  Camero^ 
determines  that  "ordination  does  not  arise  from  the  minister, 
merely  because  he  is  the  minister,  but  because  it  obtains  its 
special  authority  at  the  time."^  j,  e.  That  ordination  doth  not 
belong  to  the  power  of  order  but  to  the  power  of  jurisdiction, 
and  therefore  is  subject  to  positive  restraints,  by  prudential 
determinations.  By  this  we  may  understand  how  lawful  the 
exercise  of  an  episcopal  power  may  be  in  the  church  of  God, 
supposing  an  equality  in  all  church  officers  as  to  the  power  of 
order.  Ai;d  how  incongruously  they  speak,  who  supposing 
an  equality  in  the  presbyters  of  churches  at  first,  do  cry  out, 
that  the  church  takes  upon  her  the  office  of  Christ,  if  she  dele- 
gates any  to  a  more  peculiar  exercise  of  the  power  of  juris- 
diction. 

§  13.  The  last  thing  pleaded  why  an  immutable  form  of 
church  government  must  be  laid  down  in  scripture,  is,  from 
the  perfection  and  sufficiency  of  the  scriptures;  because  other- 
ivise  the  scriptures  ivould  be  condemned  of  imperfection. 
But  this  will  receive  an  easy  despatch:  for,  first,  the  contro- 
versy about  the  perfection  of  the  scriptures,  is  not  concerning 
an  essential  or  integral  perfection,  but  a  perfection  ratiane 
finis  et  effectuum^  "in  order  to  its  end  and  effects;"  now  the 
end  of  it,  is  to  be  an  adequate  rule  of  faith  and  manners,  and 
sufficient  to  bring  men  to  salvation;  which  it  is  sufficiently 
acknowledged  to  be,  if  all  things  to  be  believed  or  practised 
be  contained  in  the  word  of  God:  now  that  which  we  assert 

1  De  Ecclesia  in  Matt,  xviii.  15,  torn.  1,  op.  in  40,  p.  27. 

2  Ordinatio  non  sit  a.  pastore  qualenus  pastor  est,  sed  quatenus  ad   tempus 
singularem  authoritutem  obtinet. 

*  Rivet.  Isagog.  ad  Script,  sacr.  cap.  24,  s.  3. 


224  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

not  to  be  fully  laid  down  in  scripture,  is  not  pleaded  to  be 
any  ways  necessary,  nor  to  be  a  matter  of  faith,  but  some- 
tliing  left  to  the  church's  liberty;  but  here  it  is  said  by  some, 
that  this  is  adding  to  the  law  of  God,  which  destroys  the 
scriptures'  perfection;  therefore  I  answer,  secondly,  whatever 
is  done  with  an  opinion  of  the  necessity  of  doing  it,  destroys 
the  scriptures'  perfection  if  it  be  not  contained  in  it:  for  that 
were  to  make  it  an  imperfect  rule;  and  in  this  sense  every 
additio  perjiciens  is  additio  corrumpens,  every  "addition 
perfecting,  is  an  addition  corrupting,"  because  it  takes  away 
from  the  perfection  of  the  rule  which  it  is  added  to:  and  thus 
popish  traditions  are  destructive  of  the  scriptures'  sufficiency. 
But  the  doing  of  anything  not  positively  determined  in  scrip- 
ture, not  looking  upon  it  as  a  thing  we  are  bound  to  do  from 
the  necessity  of  the  thing,  and  observing  the  general  rules  of 
scripture  in  the  doing  it,  is  far  from  destroying  the  perfection 
or  sufficiency  of  the  word  of  God.  Thirdly,  all  essentials  of 
church  government  are  contained  clearly  in  scripture.  The 
essentials  of  church  government,  are  such  as  are  necessary  to 
the  preservation  of  such  a  society  as  the  church  is.  Now  all 
these  things  have  been  not  only  granted,  but  proved  to  be 
contained  in  scripture;  but  whatever  is  not  so  necessary  in 
itself,  can  only  become  necessary  by  virtue  of  God's  express 
command;  and  what  is  not  so  commanded,  is  accidental,  and 
circumstantial,  and  a  matter  of  Christian  liberty,  and  such  we 
assert  the  form  of  church  government  to  be.  It  is  not  our 
work  to  inquire,  why  God  hath  determined  some  things  that 
might  seem  more  circumstantial  than  this,  and  left  other  things 
at  liberty;  but  whether  God  hath  determined  these  things 
or  not,  which  determination  being  once  cleared,  makes  the 
thing  so  commanded  necessary  as  to  our  observance  of  it;  but 
if  no  such  thing  be  made  appear,  the  thing  remains  a  matter 
of  liberty,  and  so  the  scriptures'  perfection  as  to  necessaries  in 
order  to  salvation,  is  no  ways  impeached  by  it.  So  much  now 
for  the  necessity  of  Christ's  determining  the  particular  form 
of  government.  We  now  proceed  to  the  consideration  of 
Christ's  actions,  whether  by  them  the  form  of  church  govern- 
ment is  determined  or  not? 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  225 


CHAPTER   V. 

Wlietlicr  any  of  Christ's  actions  have  determined  the  form  of  government.  All 
power  in  Christ's  hands  for  governing  his  church.  What  order  Christ  took  in 
order  thereto  when  he  was  in  the  world.  Calling  Apostles  tiie  first  action  re- 
specting outward  government.  The  name  and  office  of  Apostles  cleared.  An 
equality  among  them  proved  during  our  Saviour's  life.  Peter  not  made 
Monarch  of  the  church  by  Christ.  The  Apostles'  power  over  the  seventy 
disciples  considered,  with  the  nature  and  quality  of  their  office,  Mattk.  xx.  25, 
26, 27,  largely  discussed  and  explained.  It  makes  not  all  inequality  in  church 
officers  unlawful;  by  the  diffi3rence  of  Apostles  and  pastors  of  churches,  Matth. 
xviii.  15.  How  far  that  determines  the  form  of  church  government.  No  evi- 
dence of  any  exact  order  for  church  government  from  thence,  Matth.  xvi.  15, 
16,  17,  18;  considered  how  far  that  concerns  the' government  of  the  church. 

§  1.  Having  considered  and  answered  the  arguments  which 
are  brought,  why  Christ  must  determine  the  particular  form 
of  government:  our  next  task  will  be  to  inquire  into  those 
actions  of  our  Saviour  which  are  conceived  to  have  any 
plausible  aspect  towards  the  settling  the  form  of  government 
in  his  church.  And  were  it  not  that  men  are  generally  so 
wedded  to  an  hypothesis  they  have  once  drunk  in  by  the  pre- 
valency  of  interest  or  education,  we  might  have  been  super- 
seded from  our  former  labour,  but  that  men  are  so  ready  to 
think  that  opinion  to  be  most  necessary,  which  they  are  most 
in  love  with,  and  have  appeared  most  zealous  for.  Men  are 
loath  to  be  persuaded  that  they  have  spent  so  much  breath 
to  so  little  purpose,  and  have  been  so  hot  and  eager  for  some- 
what, which  at  last  appears  to  be  a  matter  of  Christian  liberty. 
Therefore  we  find  very  few  that  have  been  ever  very  earnest 
in  the  maintaining  or  promoting  any  matter  of  opinion,  but 
have  laid  more  weight  upon  it,  than  it  would  really  bear;  lest 
men  should  think,  that  with  all  their  sweat  and  toil,  they  only 
beat  the  air,  and  break  their  teeth  in  cracking  a  nut,  with  a 
hole  in  it;  which  if  they  had  been  so  wise  as  to  discern  before, 
they  might  have  saved  their  pains  for  somewhat  which  would 
have  better  recompensed  them.  But  thus  it  generally  fares 
29 


226  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

with  men;  they  suck  in  principles  according  as  interest  and 
education  disposes  them,  that  being  once  in,  have  the  ad- 
vantage of  insinuating  themselves  into  the  understanding,  and 
thereby  raising  a  prejudice  against  whatever  comes  to  disturb 
them;  which  prejudice  being  the  yellow  jaundice  of  the  soul, 
leaves  such  a  tincture  upon  the  eyes  of  the  imderstanding, 
that  till  it  be  cured  of  that  icterism,  it  cannot  discern  things 
in  their  proper  colours.  Now  this  prejudice  is  raised  by  no- 
thing more  strongly  than  when  the  opinion  received  is  enter- 
tained, upon  a  presumption  that  there  is  a  divine  stamp  and 
impress  upon  it,  though  no  such  effigies  be  discernible  there. 
Hence  comes  all  the  several  contending  parties  about  church 
government,  equally  to  plead  an  interest  in  Wnsjus  divinum, 
and  whatever  opinion  they  have  espoused,  they  presently 
conceive  it  to  be  of  no  less  than  divine  extract  and  original; 
and  as  it  sometimes  was  with  great  personages  among  the 
heathens,  when  their  miscarriages  were  discernible  to  the  eye 
of  the  world,  the  better  to  palliate  them  among  the  vulgar, 
they  gave  themselves  out  to  be  impregnated  by  some  of  their 
adored  deities;  so  I  fear  it  hath  been  among  some  whose 
religion  should  have  taught  them  better  things,  when  either 
faction,  design,  or  interest,  hath  formed  some  conceptions 
within  them  suitable  thereunto,  to  make  them  the  more  pass- 
able to  the  world,  they  are  brought  forth  under  the  pretence 
of  divine  truths.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  charge  any  sincere, 
humble,  sober  Christians  with  an  offence  of  so  high  a  nature, 
who  yet  may  be  possessed  with  some  mistakes  and  apprehen- 
sions of  this  nature;  but  these  are  only  wrought  on  by  the 
masters  of  parties,  who  know  unless  they  fly  so  high,  they 
shall  never  hit  the  game  they  aim  at.  This  is  most  discernible 
in  the  factors  for  the  Roman  omnipotency ,  (as  Paulas  the 
fifth  was  called  Omnipotentise  Pontificix  Conservator,  "the 
defender  of  the  pontiff's  omnipotency:)  they  who  see  not  that 
interest  and  faction  uphold  that  court  rather  than  the  church, 
may  well  be  presumed  to  be  hoodwinked  with  more  than  an 
implicit  faith;  and  yet  if  we  believe  the  great  supporters  of 
that  interest,  the  power  they  plead  for  is  plainly  given  them 
from  Christ  himself;  and  not  only  offer  to  prove  that  it  was 
so,  but  that  it  was  not  consistent  with  the  wisdom  of  Christ 
that  it  should  be  otherwise.  Lest  I  should  seem  to  wrong 
those  of  any  religion,  hear  what  the  author  of  the  Gloss  upon 
the  Extravagants^  (so  they  may  be  well  called,)  saith  to  this 

'  Extravag.  unum  sanctum. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  227 

purpose,  applying  that  place  of  our  Saviour,  "all  power  is 
given  to  me  in  heaven  and  earth,"  Matthew  xxviii.  18,  to 
the  pope,  adds  these  words,  "the  Lord  would  not  seem,  I 
would  speak  with  reverence,  to  have  been  discreet,  had  he 
not  left  one  such  only  vicar  after  him,  who  could  do  all  these 
things."*  We  see  by  this,  what  blasphemies  men  may  run  into, 
when  they  argue  from  their  private  fancies  and  opinions,  to 
what  must  be  done  by  the  law  of  Christ.  It  therefore  becomes 
all  sober  Christians  impartially  to  inquire  what  Christ  hath 
done,  and  to  ground  their  opinions  only  upon  that,  without 
any  such  presumptuous  intrusions  into  the  counsels  of  Heaven. 
We  here  therefore  take  our  leave  of  the  dispute,  why  it  was 
necessary  that  a  form  of  government  should  be  established, 
and  now  enter  upon  a  survey  of  those  grounds  which  are 
taken  from  any  passages  of  our  Saviour,  commonly  produced 
as  a  foundation  for  any  particular  forms. 

§  2.  I  shall  not  stand  to  prove,  that  Christ  as  Mediator 
hath  all  the  power  over  the  church  in  his  own  hands,  it  being 
a  thing  so  evident  from  scripture,^  and  so  beyond  all  dispute 
with  those  whom  I  have  to  deal  with.  In  which  respect  he 
is  the  head  of  the  church,^  and  from  whom  all  divine  right  for 
authority  in  the  church  must  be  derived.  Which  right  can  arise 
only  from  some  actions  or  laws  of  Christ,  which  we  therefore 
now  search  into.  The  first  public  action  of  Christ  after  his 
solemn  entrance  upon  his  office,  which  can  be  conceived  to 
have  reference  to  the  government  of  his  church,  was,  the 
calling  the  Apostles.  In  whom  for  our  better  methodizing 
this  discourse,  we  shall  observe  these  three  several  steps; 
First,  When  they  were  called  to  be  Christ's  disciples.  Se- 
condly, When  Christ  sent  them  out  with  a  power  of  miracles. 
Thirdly,  When  he  gave  them  their  full  commission  of  acting 
with  apostolical  power  all  the  world  over.  These  three 
periods  are  accurately  to  be  distinguished;  for  the  apostles  did 
not  enjoy  so  great  power  when  they  were  disciples,  as  when 
they  were  sent  abroad  by  Christ;  neither  had  they  any  proper 
power  of  church  government  after  that  sending  forth,  till  after 
Christ's  resurrection,  when  Christ  told  them.  All  power  was 
put  into  his  hands,  and  therefore  gave  them  full  commission 
to  go  and  preach  the  gospel  to  all  nations.'^  The  first  step 
then  we  observe  in  the  apostles  towards  their  power  of  church 

•  Non  videretur  Dominus  discretus  fuisse,  ut  cum  reverenlia  ejus  loquar;  nisi 
unicum  post  se  talem  vicariutn  reliquisset,  qui  hsec  omnia  posset. 
2  Matth.  xxviii.  18.  3  isa.  ix.  6. 

4  Matth.  xxviii.  18,  19. 


228  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

government,  was  in  their  first  calling  to  be  disciples.  Two 
several  calls  are  observed  in  scripture  concerning  the  apostles: 
the  first  was  more  general,  when  they  were  called  only  to 
follow  Christ;  the  second  more  special,  when  Christ  told  them 
what  he  called  them  to,  and  specified  and  described  their 
office  to  them,  by  telling  them  he  would  make  them  Fishers 
of  men.  We  shall  endeavour  to  digest  the  order  of  their 
calling  as  clearly  and  as  briefly  as  we  can.  Our  blessed 
Saviour,  about  the  thirtieth  year  of  his  age,  solemnly  entering 
upon  the  discharge  of  his  prophetical  office,^  in  making  known 
himself  to  be  the  true  Messias  to  the  world,  to  make  his  ap- 
pearance more  public,  goes  to  Jordan,  and  is  there  baptized 
of  Johnf  presently  after  he  is  led  up  by  the  Spirit  into  the 
wilderness,  where  he  continued  forty  days.^  In  this  space  of 
time  John  removes  from  Jordan,  and  comes  on  the  other  side  to 
Bethahara;  thither  Christ  comes  to  Johnf  John  not  only  owns 
Christ  himself,  but  tells  his  disciples,  "This  was  he  into  whose 
name  he  had  baptized  them."  Upon  this,  two  of  John's 
disciples  leave  their  master  and  follow  Christ.^  These  two 
are  the  first  disciples  we  ever  read  our  Saviour  had;  whereof 
the  one  was  Jindreiv,  Peter^s  brother,  and  the  other  probably 
conceived  to  be  John,  (it  being  his  custom  to  conceal  his  name 
when  he  speaks  of  himself;)  Andrew  calls  his  brother  Peter; 
Christ  next  day  calls  Philip;  Philip  finds  Nathaniel;  and 
this,  as  far  as  we  read,  was  the  first  number  of  Christ's  disci- 
ples. Here  we  find  "  two  or  three  gathered  together  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  and  Christ,  truly,  in  the  midst  of  them."  These 
disciples  it  appears  staid  with  Christ  some  time,  for  they  went 
with  him  to  the  marriage  in  Canaf'  and  after  went  up  with 
him  to  Jerusalem:^  when  many  professed  to  be  his  disciples; 
from  thence  he  goes  into  Judea,  where  he  gathers  many 
disciples,  and  baptizeth  them.^  After  this  he  returns  with  his 
disciples  by  the  way  of  Samaria  into  Galilee:'^  and  these 
disciples  being  now  again  at  home,  in  probability  did  return 
for  their  livelihood  to  their  old  employments  for  some  small 
time,  Christ  having  not  yet  commanded  them  to  forsake  all 
and  follow  him.  Not  long  after,  (about  a  year's  space  from 
their  first  calling,)  Jesus  being  in  Galilee,  goes  to  the  lake  of 
Genezareth^^  there  he  finds  Andrew  and  Peter  fishing:"  after 

1  Luke  iii.  23.  2  Mat.  iii.  23. 

3Mat.  iv.  1.  4  John  i.  29. 

*  John  i.  37.  6  John  ii.  2, 

7  John  ii.  17,  23.  8  John  iii.  22. 

9  John  iv.  1.  10  Luke  v.  1. 
"  Mallh.  iv.  18,  19. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  229 

the  miracle  there  wrought,  he  then  in  a  more  solemn  manner 
calls  them  to  leave  their  employment,  for  he  had  designed 
them  for  a  greater,  which  was  to  he  fishers  of  men.^  Whereby 
our  Saviour  expresseth  the  care,  pains,  diligence,  design  and 
end  of  the  ministerial  function  he  had  appointed  them  for. 
Jlndrew  and  Peter  presently  leave  all  and  follow  Christ;  the 
like  do  James  and  John  whom  they  met  with,  a  little  farther 
upon  the  shore.  And  now  those  who  were  before  but  as 
common  disciples,  are  admitted  into  a  higher  order,  and  bred 
up  by  Christ  as  persons  designed  for  an  employment  of  so 
high  a  nature.  We  see  here  a  necessity  of  making  a  double 
call  of  the  apostles;  else  it  were  impossible  to  reconcile  the 
narration  of  John  with  the  other  evangelists.  Therefore 
Augustine^  thinks  their  first  being  with  Christ  as  related  by 
St.  John,  was  only  for  present  satisfaction  who  he  was,  which 
as  soon  as  they  understood  and  admired,  tliey  returned  to 
their  own  habitations.  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  makes  three 
several  callings  of  them,  the  first  ad  agnitionem  ct  famili- 
aritatem,  "  to  acknowledgement  and  intimacy,"  which  is  that 
in  John;  the  second  ad  discipulatum,  "to  discipleship,"  that 
spoken  of  in  Luke  v.  1;  the  third  ad  adhxsionem,  "to  ad- 
herence,"^ Matth.  iv.  18;  Mark  i.  16.  But  I  see  no  reason  to 
make  the  story  in  Luke  to  be  diff"erent  from  that  of  Matthew 
and  Mark;  the  former,  some  say,  was  vocatio  ad  Jidem,  "  a 
call  to  the  faith,"  a  general  preparatory  call  to  the  latter;  the 
latter  was  vocatio  ad  munus  apostolicum,  "  the  call  to  the 
apostleship,"  although  they  were  not  chosen  to  be  apostles 
till  afterwards,  yet  now  Christ  made  them  candidatos  of  the 
apostleship,  et  amicos  intetnoris  admissionis,  "his  friends  of 
a  more  intimate  access,"  in  order  to  that  great  employment 
he  had  designed  them  for.  Further,  we  must  take  notice  that 
from  the  time  of  the  baptism  of  John,  the  Apostles  did  gene- 
rally continue  with  Christ,  which  appears  from  the  qualifica- 
tion of  an  apostle  given  by  Peter  at  the  choice  of  Matthias; 
"Of  those  men  who  have  companied  with  us  all  the  time  that 
the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  among  us,  beginning  from 
the  baptism  of  John,  unto  that  same  day  he  was  taken  up 
from  us."-*  The  strength  of  which  testimony  is  impregnable, 
for  proving  that  the  apostles  did  generally  continue  with 
Christ  after  their  being  called  to  follow  him;  but  that  time, 

1  Mark  i.  IG,  17.  2  Do  Consensu.  Evang.  ].  2,  cap.  17. 

3  V.  Casaub.  excr.  in  Bar,  xiii.  s.  II.     Montacut.  Gv\g.  Ecclcs.  torn.  ].  p,  2.  p. 
11.     Cliemnitiuiii  Ilarin.  Evan.  c.  36. 
*  Acts  i,  21,  22. 


230  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

from  the  baptism  of  John,  must  not  be  taken  strictly;  for 
many  of  the  apostles,  as  Matthew,  &c.  were  not  called  till 
some  time  after. ^  About  four  months  after  Christ's  more 
solemn  calling  of  the  apostles,  at  the  time  of  Pentecost,  as 
Chemnitius  conjectures,  our  Saviour  proceeds  to  a  solemn 
choice  of  them  into  their  office,  which  is  described  by  Luke, 
vi.  13,  after  he  had  prayed  the  whole  night  before,  v.  12. 
Mark^  acquaints  us  with  the  ends  of  Christ's  choosing  them; 
First,  That  they  might  continually  attend  upon  him,  the 
better  to  be  fitted  for  their  employment  afterwards;  which  he 
expresseth,  when  he  adds,  that  he  might  send  them  out  to 
preach,  and  to  give  them  power  over  devils  and  diseases,  to 
cast  out  the  one,  and  to  cure  the  other.  Their  actual  sending 
out  was  not  (say  some,)  till  half  a  year  after,  which  is  the 
story  related  by  Mat.  x.  1;  near  a  twelvemonth,  (say  others,) 
but  presently  upon  their  choice  Christ  makes  the  sermon  in 
the  mount,  as  appears  by  comparing  Luke  vi.  17,  20,  with 
Mat.  V.  1,  wherein  among  other  things,  our  Saviour  takes 
occasion  to  declare  their  duty  to  them,  telling  them,  "  They 
were  the  light  of  the  world,''  &c.,  which  he  doth  the  more  to 
fit  them  for  the  discharge  of  their  employment. 

§  3.  Having  thus  laid  these  things  together  about  the 
apostles,  from  their  first  calling  to  the  time  of  their  mission, 
we  shall  take  notice  of  those  things  from  them  which  may 
relate  to  the  office  which  the  apostles  were  called  to,  and  to 
the  government  of  the  church  by  them.  First,  We  here 
observe,  that  our  Saviour  no  sooner  began  to  preach  the 
gospel  himself,  but  he  made  choice  of  some  persons  as  a 
peculiar  order  of  men  for  the  propagation  of  the  gospel  in 
the  world.  The  peculiarity  of  the  function  of  a  gospel 
ministry  under  Christ  was,  we  see,  designed  from  Christ's 
first  public  appearance  in  his  office:  he  might  have  left  the 
apostles  in  the  common  order  of  disciples,  had  he  not  in- 
tended an  office  in  his  church  distinct  and  peculiar  from  all 
other  employments;  and  therefore  it  is  observable,  that  Christ 
did  not  call  the  apostles  off  from  their  other  employments, 
till  he  designed  to  make  them  apostles;  before,  when  they 
were  only  private  disciples,  they  followed  their  employments 
at  some  times  still;  but  when  he  calls  them  to  he  Jis hers  of 
men,  he  bids  them  leave  all  and  follow  him.  Secondly/,  We 
take  notice  of  the  admirable  wisdom  of  our  Saviour  in  the 
choice  he  made  of  the  persons  for  first  founding  his  church, 

'  Harmon,  cap.  50.  2  Mark  iii.  14,  15. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  231 

and  the  means  he  used  to  fit  them  for  it.  The  persons  were 
such  as  were  most  suitable  to  his  design;  the  means  such  as 
were  most  suitable  to  the  persons.  The  persons  were  such, 
who  by  reason  of  the  known  meanness  of  their  condition, 
and  supposed  weakness  of  abilities,  were  the  fittest  to  con- 
vince the  world,  that  the  doctrine  which  they  preached  was 
not  the  product  of  human  wisdom,  but  the  express  image  and 
character  of  divine  truth,  whose  nakedness  and  simplicity 
would  gain  more  upon  men's  belief  by  the  power  which  ac- 
companied the  preaching  of  it,  than  the  most  refined  and 
sublime  notions  of  their  wise  men  could  do,  managed  with  the 
greatest  subtlety  and  prudence  by  the  maintainers  of  them. 
Christ  would  make  men  see  that  his  doctrine  stood  not  in 
need  either  of  the  wisdom  or  power  of  men,  to  defend  or 
propagate  it;  and  therefore  made  choice  of  the  most  unlikely 
instruments  for  that  end,  "that  men's  faith  should  not  stand 
in  the  wisdom  of  men,  but  in  the  power  of  God.''^  But 
withal,  we  are  to  take  notice  of  Christ's  admirable  wisdom  in 
the  means  he  used  to  fit  and  qualify  them  for  the  first  builders 
of  his  church;  for  although  the  power  and  efficacy  of  their 
preaching  was  wholly  from  God,  and  not  from  themselves, 
yet  our  Saviour  doth  not  presently  upon  his  calling  them, 
place  them  in  the  highest  office  he  intended  them  for,  but 
proceeds  gradually  with  them,  and  keeps  them  a  long  time 
under  his  own  eye  and  instruction,  before  he  sends  them 
abroad:  and  that  for  two  ends  chiefly.  First,  To  be  ivitnesses 
of  his  actions.  Secondly,  To  be  auditors  of  his  doctrine. 
First,  To  be  witnesses  of  his  actions,  which  was  looked  on 
by  the  apostles,  as  the  most  necessary  qualification  for  an 
apostle  in  the  place  before  cited,  e-^c/*  i.  21,  22.  Pe/er  calls 
himself  a  "witness  of  the  suff"erings  of  Christ,"  1  Pet.  v.  1. 
John  saith,  "That  which  was  from  the  beginning,  which  we 
have  heard,  which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  which  we 
have  looked  upon,  and  our  hands  have  handled  of  the  Word 
of  Life;  that  which  we  have  seen  and  heard  declare  we  unto 
you,"  1  John  i.  1,  3,  whereby  the  credibility  of  the  gospel 
was  sufficiently  evidenced  to  the  world,  when  the  chief 
preachers  spoke  nothing  but  what  their  own  senses  were 
witnesses  of,  both  as  to  the  doctrine  and  actions  of  Christ;  and 
therefore  it  is  no  ways  credible  they  should  be  deceived  them- 
selves in  what  they  spoke;  and  more  improbable  they  would 
deceive  others,  whose  interest  lay  wholly  upon  the  truth  of 

1  1  Cor.  ii.  5. 


232  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

the  doctrine  which  they  preached;  for  by  the  very  preaching 
of  that  doctrine  they  robbed  themselves  of  all  the  comforts 
of  life,  and  exposed  themselves  to  a  thousand  miseries  in  this 
world;  so  that  unless  their  doctrine  was  true  in  order  to 
another  life,  they  were  guilty  of  the  greatest  folly  on  earth 
ever  heard  of  We  see  what  care  our  Saviour  took  to  satisfy 
the  reasons  of  men  concerning  the  credibility  of  his  doctrine, 
when  the  persons  he  employed  in  the  founding  a  church  upon 
it,  were  only  such  as  were  intimately  conversant  with  the 
whole  life,  doctrine,  and  works  of  him  from  whom  they  re- 
ceived it;  and  thereby  we  cannot  suppose  any  ignorance  in 
them  concerning  the  things  they  spoke;  and  lest  men  should 
mistrust  they  might  have  a  design  to  impose  on  others,  he 
made  their  faithfulness  appear  by  their  exposing  themselves 
to  any  hazards  to  make  good  the  truth  of  what  they  preached. 
Especially,  having  such  a  divine  power  accompanying  them 
in  the  miracles  wrought  by  them,  which  were  enough  to  per- 
suade any  rational  men  that  they  came  upon  a  true  embassy, 
who  carried  such  credentials  along  with  them.  Another  end 
of  our  Saviour's  training  up  his  apostles  so  long  in  his  school 
before  he  sent  them  abroad,  was,  that  they  might  be  auditors 
of  his  doctrine,  and  so  might  learn  themselves  before  they 
taught  others.  Christ  was  no  friend  to  those  hasty  births 
which  run  abroad  with  the  shell  on  their  heads;  no,  although 
it  was  in  his  power  to  confer  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as 
well  at  their  first  entrance  into  discipleship  as  afterwards,  yet 
we  see  he  nurtures  and  trains  them  up  gradually,  teaching 
them  as  Quiyitilian  would  have  masters  do,  guttativi,  "  by 
drops,"  acquainting  them  now  with  one,  then  with  another  of 
the  mysteries  of  the  gospel.  Christ  doth  not  overwhelm  them 
with  floods  and  torrents  of  discourses,  but  gently  drops  now 
one  thing  into  them,  then  another,  by  which  way  such  nar- 
row-mouthed vessels  would  be  the  soonest  filled.  Yea,  our 
Saviour  useth  such  an  oixovo^iia,  "economy,  management,"  as 
the  Greek  fathers  call  it,  such  a  prudent  temper  in  instructing 
them,  that  it  is  matter  of  just  admiration  to  consider  under 
how  great  and  stupendous  ignorance  of  the  main  points  of 
redemption,  (Christ's  death  and  resurrection,  and  the  nature 
of  his  kingdom,)  they  discovered,  after  they  had  been  some 
years  under  Christ's  tutorage.  And  we  see  what  industry 
and  diligence  was  used  in  the  training  up  of  those  for  the 
apostleship,  who  were  in  an  immediate  way  sent  out  by 
Christ.  And  it  is  very  probable  that  upon  their  first  sending 
abroad  they  taught  not  by  immediate  revelation,  but  only 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  233 

what  they  had  learned  from  Christ  during  their  being  with 
him.  Whence  we  see  what  a  subordination  there  is  in  ac- 
quired parts,  labour,  and  industry,  to  the  teachings  and  inspi- 
rations of  the  Divine  Spirit;  our  Saviour  looked  not  on  his 
labour  as  lost,  although  afterwards  the  lunction  from  the  Holy 
One  should  teach  iheni  all  things.     It  was  Christ's  design  to 

have  them  go  Vn Sn  Vno,  "from  strength  to  strength,"^ 

a  domo  sanctuarii  in  domtcm  doctrinse,^  as  the  Chaldee  para- 
jihrast  renders  that  place,  "from  one  school  of  learning  to 
another."  As  under  the  law  even  those  that  waited  for  the 
Ruach  hakkodesh,  "the  inspiration  of  the  Divine  Spirit," 
were  brought  up  in  the  schools  of  the  prophets  under  instruc- 
tion there:  which  was  the  place  where  they  lay  expecting  the 
gentle  gale  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  carry  them  forth;  which  was 
the  ground  of  Amos^s  complaint,  that  "he  was  neither  a  pro- 
phet, nor  the  son  of  a  prophet;"^  by  which  it  seems  evident 
that  God's  ordinary  course  was  to  take  some  of  the  sons  of 
the  prophets  out  of  the  colleges  where  they  lived,  and  employ 
them  in  the  prophetical  office.  But  of  this  largely  elsewhere. 
Such  a  school  of  the  prophets  did  our  Saviour  now  erect, 
wherein  he  entered  his  disciples  as  scholars,  and  educated 
them  in  order  to  the  office  he  intended  for  them. 

§  4.  The  next  thing  we  take  notice  of,  is,  the  name  and 
nature  of  that  office  which  Christ  called  them  to.  They  who 
derive  the  use  of  the  name  of  apostles  as  applied  by  Christ  to 
hisdisciples,  either  from  the  arto^oTtEtj,  "apostles,"  at  Jj/Aen*,  by 
which  name  the  masters  of  some  ships  were  called,  as  the  ships 
drtoj-oTiof,,  "  sent  forth,"  or  from  Hesychius^s'^  a7iogo7,ov,  which  he 
interprets  i/V;iK?)ay«yo5,  "those  who  conducted  the  bride  to  the 
bridegroom,"  or  from  the  drtosoxou  in  the  sense  of  the  civil  law, 
which  signifies  the  "dismissory  letters  granted  for  appeals;"  or 
from  the  Jewish  pn^bty,  "sent,"  as  thereby  were  understood 
those  drtos'o:^ot  as  Epiphanius  calls  them,  who  were  as  asses- 
sors and  counsellors  to  XhQ  patriarch  of  the  Jews  at  Tiberias; 
or  those  "officers  who  were  sent"  up  and  down  by  \he patri- 
arch to  gather  up  tenths,  first  fruits,  and  such  other  things; 
who  are  called  thence  apostoli  in  the  Codex.  Theod.  tit.  de 
Judaeis;^  all  these  I  say  do  equally  lose  their  labour,  and  run 
far  to  fetch  that  which  might  be  found  much  nearer  home. 

'  Psalms  Ixxxiv.  7. 

2  "  From  the  house  of  the  Sanctuary  to  the  house  of  doctrine." 

3  Amos  vii.  14. 

*  Suidas  in  v.  Digest.  I.  50,  tit.  16,  leg.  106.    Cont.  Ebionitas. 
s  Lib.  16,  tit.  8. 
30 


234  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  or 

Our  Saviour  taking  the  word  from  common  use,  but  applying 
it  m  a  special  manner  to  a  peculiar  sense,  which  is  the  cus- 
tom of  the  Scriptures.  The  original  of  the  word  properly 
imports  such  as  are  employed  by  commission  from  another 
for  the  despatch  of  some  business  in  his  name.  So  Casaubon,^ 
(who  was  sufiiciently  able  to  judge  of  the  use  of  a  Greek 
word,)  "certain  men,  in  the  common  Greek  dialect,  are  called 
ario^oxoi,  wlio  are  sent  to  some  places,  more  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  on  some  concern,  than  for  conveying  news,"  And 
so  it  is  taken,  John  xiii.  16,  ovhs  aHogoxo^  ^n^av  -tov  rt£;u4ai'i'o5 
wvtov,  "He  that  is  sent  is  not  greater  than  he  that  sent  him." 
Thence  Epaphroditus  when  employed  upon  a  special  mes- 
sage to  Paul  in  the  name  of  the  churches,  is  called  dTiogoxo^ 
vficiv,  Fhilippians  il  .25,  which  we  translate  "your  messen- 
ger." And  so  Titus  and  the  two  other  sent  to  the  church  of 
Corinth  to  gather  their  charity,^  are  called  aTto^o^oi  cxxXT^aicovy 
"the  messengers  of  the  churches."  Thence  Faul  fully  ren- 
ders the  import  and  sense  of  the  word  apostle  by  rt^saSsvofisv, 
2  Corinth,  v.  20.  We  act  as  "ambassadors"  for  Christ.  To 
which  purpose  it  is  observable  that  the  Septuagint,  (whose 
Greek  is  most  followed  by  the  New  Testament,)  do  render 
the  word  nSiy  when  it  signifies  to  employ  a  messenger  upon 
special  service,  by  aHo^s-KUiv,  "to  send,"^  as  1  King.  xxi.  11; 
1  King.  xii.  IS;  Exod.  iv.  30,  and  the  very  word  drtos-o^o?  is 
used  in  this  sense,  1  King.  xiv.  G,  where  Ahijah  saith,  I  am 
ttrtos-oxcj  rt^oj  (j£  axxriepi,  "a  sad  messenger  to  thee;"  for,  thus 
saith  the  Lord,  &c.  Whereby  the  full  sense  and  importance 
of  the  word  apostle  appears  to  be,  one  that  is  employed  by  a 
peculiar  commission  from  him  that  hath  authority  over  him 
for  the  doing  some  special  service.  Thus  were  Christ's  dis- 
ciples called  apostles  from  the  immediate  commission  which 
they  had  from  Christ  for  the  discharge  of  that  work  which  he 
employed  them  in.  Thence  our  Saviour  makes  use  of  the 
word  sending  in  the  proper  and  peculiar  sense  when  he 
gives  the  apostles  their  commission,  in  those  remarkable 
words  of  Christ  to  them;  As  the  Father  hath  sent  me  even  so 
send  I  you.  John  xx.  21.  Whereby  our  Saviour  delegates 
his  power  and  authority  which  he  had  as  doctor  of  the  church, 
to  his  apostles  upon  his  leaving  the  world,  not  in  3.  privative 
way,  so  as  to  destroy  his  own  authority  over  the  church,  but 

'  In  communi  Grfficorum  usu  awoj-oXot  dicebantur  ccrti  homines  qui  negotii 
gerendi  gratia,,  niagis  quam  deferendi  nunlii,  aliquo  niittebantur. — Excrcit.  14, 
sect.  4. 

2  2Cor.  viii.SS. 

3  "A  naval  expedition;  a.iro(;-o\a  TrXoia,  transport  vessels,  express-boats." 


FORMS  OP  CHUKCH  GOVERNMENT.  235 

in  a  cwmulative  toay,  investing  them  with  that  authority 
which  they  had  not  before,  for  both  teaching  and  governing 
the  church.  No  argument  then  can  be  drawn  for  the  right 
or  form  of  church  government  from  Christ's  actions  towards 
his  disciples  before  tlie  last  and  full  commission  was  given 
unto  them;  because  they  had  no  power  of  church  govern- 
ment before  that  time. 

§  5.  Which  will  be  further  cleared  if  we  consider  their  first 
sending  out,  spoken  in  Matth.  x.  1,  Mark  vi.  7,  Luke  ix.  1. 
Several  things  lie  in  our  way  to  be  observed  in  reference  to 
this  mission  of  the  apostles.  First,  that  though  the  apostles 
had  been  now  for  some  competent  time,  not  only  called  to 
their  office,  but  solemnly  chosen  to  it;  yet  we  nowhere  read 
that  they  did  ever  exercise  that  office  till  now  they  were  sent 
forth  by  Christ.  They  remained  still  at  Christ's  feet,  learning 
for  their  own  instruction,  and  fitting  themselves  for  their  future 
employment,  and  thought  it  no  inconvenience  while  they  lay 
for  a  wind,  to  lay  in  sufficient  lading  and  provision  for  their 
voyage.  Baptize  indeed  they  did  before,  Joh7i  iv.  2,  but  that 
I  suppose  was  done  by  them  by  an  immediate  present  order 
from  Christ  himself,  being  by  as  the  chief  in  the  action,  thence 
Christ  in  one  place  is  said  to  baptize,  John  iii.  22,  and  yet  he 
is  said  not  to  baptize,  but  his  disciples,  Joh?i  iv.  2.  Christ  did 
it  authoritatively ,  the  disciples  ministerially.  Yet  if  we 
should  grant  the  disciples  did  then  baptize  as  private  men 
after  the  received  custom  of  the  Jews,  (among  whom  only  a 
confessus  trium,  "a  session  of  three,"  /.  e.  teacher,  was  re- 
quisite to  baptize  a  proselyte,)  this  doth  not  at  all  take  oft' from 
the  peculiarity  of  a  function  both  to  preach  and  baptize,  be- 
cause as  yet  the  gospel  ministry  was  not  instituted;  and  there- 
fore what  might  be  lawful  before  restraint,  doth  not  follow  it 
should  be  so  after:  when  all  those  scattered  rays  and  beams, 
which  were  dispersed  abroad  before,  were  gathered  into  the 
ministerial  office  upon  Christ's  appointing  it,  as  that  great 
hemisphere  of  light  in  the  creation,  was  after  swallowed  up  in 
the  body  of  the  sun.  But  now  were  the  apostles  first  sent  out 
to  preach,  and  now  God  first  begins  to  null  the  Jewish  minis- 
try, and  set  up  another  instead  of  it,  and  makes  good  that 
threatening:  "That  he  was  against  the  shepherds,  and  would 
require  the  flock  at  their  hand,  and  cause  them  to  cease  to 
feed  the  flock,"^  &c.  Here  then  we  have  the  first  exercise  of 
the  apostles'  ministry,  for  which  we  see,  besides  their  former 

'  Ezek.  x.\xiv.  10. 


236  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

call  and  choice,  particular  mission  was  afterwards  necessary. 
Secondly,  we  observe  that  the  employment  Christ  sent  them 
upon  now,  was  only  a  temporary  employment,  confined  as  to 
work  and  place,  and  not  the  full  apostolical  work.   The  want 
of  considering  and  understanding  this,  hath  been  the  ground 
of  very  many  mistakes  among  men,  when  they  argue  from 
the  occasional  precepts  here  given  the  apostles,  as  from  a 
standing  perpetual  rule  for  a  gospel  ministry:  whereas  our 
Saviour  only  suited  these  instructions  to  the  present  case,  and 
the  nature  and  condition  of  the  apostles'  present  employment, 
which  was,  not  to  preach  the  gospel  up  and  down  themselves, 
•but  to  be  as  so  many  John  Bajjtists  to  call  people  to  the  hear- 
ing of  Christ  himself;  and  therefore  the  doctrine  they  were 
to  preach  was  the  same  with  his,  "  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  is 
at  hand,"^  whereby  it  appears  their  doctrine  was  only  pre- 
paratory to  Christ;  it  being  only  to  raise  up  higher  expecta- 
tions of  the  gospel  state  under  the  Messias;  and  these  were 
they  "whom  the  King  now  sent  into  the  highways  to  invite 
men  to  the  marriage-feast,  and  to  bid  them  to  come  in  to 
hira."^  Tills  was  the  only  present  employment  of  the  apostles 
in  their  first  mission:  in  which  they  were  confined  to  the  cities 
of  Judea,  that  they  might  have  the  first  refusal  of  the  gospel 
offers.     This  mission   then  being  occasional,   limited,  and 
temporary,  cdin  yield  no  foundation  io\  dj\yih\n%  ]jerpetual  io 
be  built   upon  it.     Thirdly,  we  observe  that  those  whom 
Christ  employed  in  the  first  dispersing  of  the  gospel  abroad, 
Avere  furnished  with  arguments  sufficient  to  evince  not  only 
the  credibility,  but  the  certain  truth  of  what  they  preached. 
Therefore  Christ,  when  he  now  sent  them  out,  gave  them 
i'^ovoiav  'sivevfiatav,  "power  ovcr  Spirits,"    not  only  "a  mere 
power  to  work  miracles,  but  a  right  conferred  on  them  to 
do  it  as  the  apostles  of  Christ."^     These  were  the  creden- 
tials which  the  apostles  carried  along  with  them  to  show 
from  whom  they  derived  their  power,  and  by  whose  autho- 
rity they  acted.     And  these  were  the  most  suitable  to  them, 
as  making  it  appear  that  a  divine  presence  went  along  with 
them,  and  therefore  they  could  not  falsify  to  the  world  in  what 
they  declared  unto  them;  which  was  the  best  way  for  them 
to  evidence  the  truth  of  their  doctrine,  because  it  was  not  to 
be  discovered  by  the  evidence  of  the  things  themselves,  but  it 
depended  upon  the  testimony  of  the  author;  and  therefore  the 
only  way  to  confirm  the  truth  of  the  doctrine,  was  to  confirm 

1  Matth.  X.  7.  2  Matth.  xxii.  9.  3  Matth.  x.  2. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  237 

the  credibility  of  the  author,  which  was  best  done  by  doing 
something  above  what  tlie  power  of  nature  could  reach  unto. 
And  this  was  the  prerogative  of  the  apostles  in  their  first  mis- 
sion above  John  the  Baptist:  for  of  him  it  is  said  that  he  did 
no  miracle.     Fourthly,  we  observe  that  the  apostles  in  this 
mission  were  invested  in  no  power  over  the  church,  nor  in 
any  superiority  of  order  one  over  another.     The  first  is  evi- 
dent, because  Christ  did  not  now  send  them  abroad  to  gather 
churches,  but  only  to  call  persons  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Mes- 
sias;  and  while  Christ  was  in  the  world  among  them,  lie 
retained  all  church  power  and  authority  in  his  own  hand. 
When  this  temporary  mission  expired,  the  apostles  lived  as 
private  persons  still  under  Christ's  tutorage,  and  we  never 
read  them  acting  in  the  least  as  church  officers  all  that  while. 
Which  may  appear  from  this  one  argument,  because  all  the 
time  of  our  Saviour's  being  in  the  world,  he  never  made  a 
total  separation  from  the  Jewish  church,  but  frequented  with 
his  disciples  the  temple  ivot^ship  and  service  to  the  last;  al- 
though he  superadded  many  gospel  observances  to  those  of 
the  laiv.     And  therefore  when  no  churches  were  gathered, 
the  apostles  cowXA  have  no  church  pov/er  over  them.   All  that 
can  be  pleaded  then  in  order  to  church  government  from  the 
consideration  of  the  form  of  government  as  settled  by  our  Sa- 
viour, must  be  either  from  "a  supposed  inequality  among  the 
apostles  themselves,  or  their  superiority  over  the  seventy  dis- 
ciples; or  from  some  rules  laid  down  by  Christ  in  order  to  the 
government  of  his  church:  of  which  two  are  the  most  insisted 
on,"  Matthew  xx.  25;  xviii.  17.     Of  these  in  their  order. 

§  6.  The  first  argument  drawn  for  an  established  form  of 
government  in  the  church,  from  the  state  of  the  apostles  under 
Christ,  is,  "  from  a  supposed  inequality  among  the  apostles, 
and  the  superiority  of  one  as  monarch  of  the  church;"  which 
is  the  papist's  plea  from  St.  Peter,  as  the  chief  and  head  of 
the  apostles.  Whose  loud  exclamations  for  St.  Peter^s  au- 
thority are  much  of  the  same  nature  with  those  o{  Demetrius 
the  silversmith,  at  ^/;Ae5z<.s,  with  his  fellow  craftsmen,  who 
cried  up,  great  is  Diana  of  the  Ephesians,  not  from  the  honour 
they  bore  to  her  as  Diana,  but  from  the  gain  which  came  to 
them  from  her  worship  at  Ephesus.  But  I  dispute  not  now 
the  entail  of  St.  Peter'' s  power,  whatever  it  was  to  the  Ro- 
man bishop:  but  I  only  inquire  into  the  pleas  drawn  for  his 
authority  from  the  scriptures,  which  are  written  in  so  small  a 
character,  that  without  {\iii  spectacles  oi  aw  implicit  faith,  they 
will  scarcely  appear  legible  to  the  eyes  of  men.     For  what 


23S  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

though  Christ  changed  St.  Peter's  name?  must  it  iherefbic 
folJow  that  Christ  baptized  him  monarch  of  his  church?  Were 
not  John  and  James  called  by  Christ  Boanerges?  and  j/^et  who 
thinks  that  those  sons  of  thunder  must  tlierefore  overturn  all 
other  power  but  their  own?  Christ  gave  them  new  names, 
to  show  his  own  authority/  over  them,  and  not  their  authority 
over  others;  to  be  as  monitors  of  their  duty,  and  not  as  in- 
struments to  convey  power.  So  Chrysostom  says  that  the 
very  name  Peter,  given  to  Simon,  was  to  show  him  his  duty 
of  being  fixed  and  stable  in  the  faith  of  Christ,  'iva  txn  BtSaaxa- 

%ov  St,t]vsxV  *'?''  fipo(Sf!yo^i,av  -fru    'toiavtrii  ^eppoift^'ifos,^  "  tliat  lie  might 

have  a  teacher,  as  a  perpetual  remembrancer,"  (or  as  a  string 
on  his  finger,)  of  such  stability;  (i.  e.  of  a  rock.)  And  like- 
wise, I  conceive,  as  an  encouragement  to  him  after  his  fall, 
that  he  should  recover  his  former  stability  again;  else  it  should 
seem  strange  that  he  alone  of  the  apostles  should  have  his 
name  from  frmness  and  stability,  who  fell  the  soonest,  and 
the  foulest  of  any  of  the  apostles,  unless  it  were  xat  avtt^^aatv, 
"by  antiphrase,"  which  would  be  worse  divinity  than  rheto- 
ric. The  change  then  of  St.  Peter's  name  imports  no  such 
universal  power,  neither  from  the  change,  nor  from  the  name. 
But  why  then  hath  St.  Peter  the  honour  to  be  named  first 
of  all  the  apostles?  First,  it  seems  to  be  implied  as  an 
honour  given  to  Peter  above  the  rest.  But  doth  all  honour 
carry  a  universal  power  along  with  it?  There  may  be  order 
certainly  among  equals;  and  there  may  be  frst,  secorul,  and 
third,  6)-c.  where  there  is  no  imparity  and  jurisdiction  in  tlie 
first  over  all  the  rest.  Primacy  of  order  as  among  equals,  I 
know  none  will  deny  St.  Peter:  a  primacy  of  poiver  as  over 
inferiors,  I  know  none  will  grant,  but  such  as  have  subdued 
their  reason  to  their  passion  and  interest.  Nay,  a  further 
order  than  of  mere  place  may  without  danger  be  attributed 
to  him.  i/l  2irimacy  in  order  of  time,  as  being  of  the  first 
called,  and  it  may  be  the  first  who  adhered  to  Christ,  m  o7'der 
of  age;  of  which  Jerome  says,  setati  delatum  quia  Petrus 
senior  erat,  "  It  was  conferred  on  age,  because  Peter  was 
the  senior,"  speaking  of  Peter  and  John;  nay  yet  higher, 
some  order  of  dignity  \.oof  in  regard  of  his  '^te^y^oiriz,  "warmth," 
of  which  the  Greek  fathers  speak  so  much;  the  fervency  and 
heat  of  his  spirit,  whence  by  Eusebius^  he  is  called  s^oj^yopoj 
tw  arto$o%ap,  "the  prolocutor  amoug  the  apostles,"  who  was 

'  Tom.  8,  cd.  Savil.  p.  105.  2  Lib.  1,  6,  Jovin. 

Mlist.  Ecclcbicist.  lib.  2,  c.  14. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  239 

therefore  most  forward  to  inquire,  most  ready  to  answer; 
whicii  Chrysostom  elegantly  calls  Tt^oHYihav,  "a  springing  be- 
fore," alluding  to  the  name  xo^u^atoj,  "a  leader,"  and  tia^x^i,^ 
"one  that  commences,  that  starts,"  which  are  frequently  given 
to  Peter  by  the  fathers,  which  import  no  more  than  j^rmsuUor 
in  chored,  "  he  that  led  the  dance"  among  the  disciples:  but 
his  being  xopv^aioj  implies  no  superiority  of  power.  For  Dyo- 
nys.  Halicarnass.^  calls  Jippius  Claudius  ts  xopv^avotatov  ttji 
Ssxa^xi'O'i^  "  the  chief,  (though  not  in  power,)  amongst  the 
Decemviri,"  whereas  all  know  that  the  Decemviri  had  an 
equality  of  power  among  themselves.  Neither  doth  his  being 
as  the  moiUh  of  the  disciples  imply  his  power;  for  Aaron  was 
a  mouth  to  Moses,  but  Moses  was  Jiaron^s  master.  Neither 
yet  doth  this  primacy  of  order  always  hold  in  reference  to 
Peter,  for  although  generally  he  is  named  first  of  the  apostles, 
as  in  Matthew^x.  2;  Mark  iii.  16;  Acts  I  13;  Mark  \.  36; 
Luke  viii,  45;  Acts  ii.  14 — 37.  Yet  in  other  places  of  scrip- 
ture we  find  other  apostles  set  in  order  before  him,  as  James, 
Galat.  ii.  9:  Paul  and  Apollos,  and  others,  1  Cor.  iii.  22;  1 
Cor.  i.  12 — ix.  5.  No  argument  then  can  be  drawn  hence, 
if  it  would  hold  but  only  a  primacy  of  order;  and  yet  even 
that  fails  too  in  the  scripture's  changing  of  the  order  so  often. 
"  But,  say  they,  whatever  becomes  of  this  order,  we  have  a 
strong  foundation  for  St.  Peter's  power,  because  Christ  said, 
he  would  build  his  church  upon  him,"  Matth.  xvi.  17.  This 
were  something  indeed,  were  it  proved;  but  I  fear  this  rock 
will  not  hold  water,  as  it  is  brought  by  them;  nor  St.  Peter 
prove  to  be  that  rock.  For  indeed,  was  the  church  built  upon 
St.  Pete?'?  then  he  must  be  the  chief  foundation  stone,  and 
Peter  must  build  upon  himself,  and  not  upon  Christ,  and  all 
the  apostles  upon  him;  and  thus  in  exalting  the  servant,  we 
depress  the  master;  and  in  setting  a  new  foundation,  we  take 
away  the  only  foundation,  Jesus  Christ.^  If  by  being  built 
upon  Peter,  they  mean  no  more  than  being  built  by  him  as 
the  chief  instrument,  it  is  both  a  very  incongruous  speech,  and 
implies  nothing  more  than  what  was  common  to  him  and  the 
rest  of  the  apostles,  who  were  all  master  builders  in  the  church 
of  Christ,  as  Paul  calls  himself,  and  in  that  respect  are  set 
forth  as  the  twelve  foundation  stones,^  in  the  walls  of  the 
New  Jerusalem. 

The  rock  then  spoken  of  by  Christ,  in  his  speech  to  Peter, 

1  Chrysost.  in  Matlli.  vi.  16.  2  Hist.  Rom.  lib.  11. 

3  1  Cor.  iii.  12.  4  Rev.  xxi.  19. 


240  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

if  taken  doctrinally ,  was  St.  Peter^s  confession,  as  many  of 
the  fathers  interpret  it;  if  taken  personally,  it  was  none  other 
but  Christ  himself;  who  used  a  hke  speech  to  this,  when  he 
said,  "  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it 
up."^  Which  words,  though  spoken  by  occasion  of  the  mate- 
rial temple,  (as  those  were  of  Peter^s  name,)  yet  Christ  under- 
stood them  of  the  temple  of  his  body,  (as  here  likewise  he  doth 
of  his  person.)  But  still  they  urge,  Christ  put  the  keys  into 
St.  Peter's  hands,  Matthew  xvi.  19.  Noio  the  power  of  the 
keys  doth  denote  regal  authority.  I  answer,  First,  The 
keys  may  be  given  two  ways,  either  from  a  prince  to  a  sub- 
ject, or  froiu  a  city  to  a  prince.  In  this  latter  acceptation, 
they  denote  principality  in  the  receiver,  but  withal  inferiority 
and  subjection  in  the  giver;  and  in  this  sense,  I  am  so  charita- 
ble, as  to  think  they  will  not  say  that  Christ  gave  the  keys  to 
Peter;  it  must  then  be  as  a  prince  to  a  subject;  and  when  they 
are  so  given,  it  doth  not  imply  an  universal  power  in  the 
persons  to  whom  they  are  given,  but  an  investing  them  in 
that  particular  place  he  hath  appointed  them  to;  the  office 
which  the  power  of  the  keys  implies,  is  ministerial,  and  not 
authoritative;  declarative,  and  not  juridical;  over  persons 
committed  to  their  charge,  and  not  over  officers  joined  in 
equality  of  power  ivith  them.  For  so  were  the  rest  of  the 
apostles  with  Peter  in  the  same  power  of  the  keys,  Matth. 
xviii.  18;  John  xx.  23.  This  power  of  the  keys  then  was 
given  to  Peter  in  a  peculiar  manner,  but  nothing  peculiar 
to  him  given  thereby.  But  still  there  remains  another 
ivard  in  St.  Peter's  keys,  and  the  last  foot  to  the  pope's 
chair,  which  is pasce  oves,  "Feed  my  sheep;"  a  charge  given 
particuUwly  to  Peter,  John  xxi.  15.  Thence  they  infer  his 
poiver  over  the  ivhole  church.  But  this  foot  hath  neither 
joints  nor  sineivs  in  it,  and  is  as  infirm  as  any  of  the  rest;  for 
neither  did  this  command  nor  the  commission  belong  only  to 
Peter;  for  Christ  had  before  given  them  all  their  general  com- 
mission: "As  the  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you," 
John  XX.  21;  whereby  is  implied  an  investing  all  the  apostles 
equally,  with  the  power  and  authority  of  governing  the  church 
of  God;  although  this  charge  be  peculiarly  renewed  to  Peter, 
because  as  he  had  particularly  fallen,  so  he  should  be  par- 
ticularly restored;  neither  yet  did  we  grant  this:  doth  the 
word  rtotjuatvstv  "  to  pasture,  to  feed,"  imply  such  a  power  and 
authority  as  they  plead  for,  viz.  a  supreme  power  over  the 

1  John  ii.  19. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  241 

church  of  God?  for  this  even  by  Peter  himself  is  attributed  to 
the  fixed  presbyters  of  the  churches,  who  by  this  argument 
have  as  much  authority  conveyed  them,  as  St.  Peter  had,  1 
Peter  v.  2;  and  yet  should  we  grant  this,  it  would  not  infer 
what  they  desire;  for  these  sheep  were  not  the  whole  church 
of  Christ,  taken  absolutely,  but  indefinitely.  For  all  the 
apostles  had  a  command  to  preach  to  every  creature,  Matth, 
xxviii.  IS,  which  was  as  to  the  words  larger,  as  to  the  sense 
the  same  with  that  to  St.  Peter  here.  And  afterwards  we 
find  Peter  called  the  apostle  of  circumcision^  and  the  apos- 
tles sending  him  to  Samaria,^  and  Paul  in  the  right  hand 
of  fellowship  loith  Peter f"  which  had  been  certainly  dis- 
honourable to  Peter,  had  he  been  invested  with  such  an 
universal  supreme  power  over  the  apostles  and  the  whole 
church.  Such  pretences  then  as  these  are  for  such  an  extra- 
vagant power  in  the  church  of  God,  from  such  miserably 
weak  foundations,  for  the  upholding  a  corrupt  interest,  have 
given  the  occasion  to  that  tart  sarcasm.  In  papatu  sub  Petro 
nudo  nomine  Satan  non  amplius  larva,  "  In  the  papacy, 
under  the  mere  name  of  Peter,  Satan  is  not  larger  than  a 
sprite."  But  that  which  would  seem  sufficient  to  awaken  any 
out  of  this  dream  of  St.  Peter^s  power  over  the  rest  of  the 
apostles,  is,  the  frequent  contendings  of  the  twelve  apostles, 
one  among  another,  who  should  be  the  greatest;'*  and  that 
even  after  that  Christ  had  said,  "  Upon  this  Rock  will  I  build 
ray  church,"  as  we  may  see  Matthew  xx.  24,  If  Christ  had 
conferred  such  a  power  on  St.  Peter,  what  little  ground  had 
there  been  for  the  request  of  James  and  Johnl  and  would  not 
our  Saviour  rather  have  told  them,  the  chiefest  place  was 
conferred  on  Peter  already,  than  have  curbed  their  ambition 
in  seeking  who  should  be  greatest;  and  would  have  bid  them 
be  subject  to  Peter  as  their  head  and  ruler.  We  see  not  then 
the  least  foundation  for  an  universal  monarchy  in  the  church 
of  God;  and  so  this  form  of  government  is  not  determined  by 
any  actions  or  commands  of  Christ. 

§  7.  We  come  now  to  consider  the  pleas  of  others,  who  join 
in  renouncing  any  supreme  power  under  Christ,  over  the 
church  of  God;  but  differ  as  to  the  particular  forms  of  govern- 
ment in  the  church;  those  who  are  for  an  inequality,  usually 
fix  on  the  imparity  between  the  apostles  and  the  Seventy; 
those  that  are  for  di  parity,  upon  Matth.  xx.  25,  and  Matth. 

>  Gal.  ii.  7.  2  Acts  viii.  14.  3  Qal.  ii.  9. 

■*  Mat.  xviii.  1;  ix.  34.     Luke  ix.  46. 
31 


242  THE  DIVINE   RIGHT  OF 

xviii.  17.     1  shall  here  proceed  in  the  former  method,  to  show 
that  none  of  those  can  prove  the  form  they  contend  for  as 
only  necessary^  for  their  adversaries  prove  it  imlaivfnl.   First, 
then,  for  the  inequality  between  the  apostles  and  the  seventy 
disciples;   by  that  inequality  is  meant,  either  only  an  ine- 
quality of  order;  or  else,  an  inequality  carrying  superiority 
and  subordination.     It  is  evident  that  the  sev&nty  disciples 
were  not  of  the  same  order  with  the  twelve  apostles,  whom 
Christ  had  designed  for  the  chief  government  of  his  church, 
after  his  ascension;  and  in  this  respect  the  comparison  of  the 
twelve  heads  of  the  tribes,  and  the  seventy  elders,  seems 
parallel  with  the  twelve  apostles,  and  the  seventy  disciples; 
but  if  by  imparity,  be  meant,  that  the  twelve  apostles  had  a 
superiority  of  power  and  jurisdiction  over  the  seventy  dis- 
ciples, there  is  not  the  least  evidence  or  foundation,  in  reason 
or  scripture  for  it.     For  the   seventy  did  not  derive  their 
power  from  the  apostles;  but  immediately  from  Christ;  they 
enjoyed  the  same  privileges,  were  sent  upon  the  same  mes- 
sage,i  (making  way  for  Christ's  entertainment  in  the  several 
cities  they  went  to,)  yea,  all  things  were  parallel  between 
them  and  the  apostles  in  their  mission,  (unless  any  difference 
be  made  in  the  cities  they  went  to,  and  their  number.)     So 
that  there  is  no  superiority  of  office  in  the  apostles,  above  the 
seventy,  nor  of  power  and  jurisdiction  over  them;  their  com- 
missions being  the  same:  and  it  seems  most  probable  that 
both  their  missions  were  only  temporary,  and  after  this  the 
seventy  remained  in  the  nature  of  private  disciples,  till  they 
were  sent  abroad  by  a  new  commission  after  the  resurrection, 
for  preaching  the  gospel,  and  planting  churches.     For  we  see 
that  the  apostles  themselves  were  only  probationers,  till  Christ 
solemnly  authorized  them  for  their  apostolical  employment, 
MatthilxxvVn.  18,  John  xx.  21,  when  their  full  commissions 
were  granted  to  them,  and  then  indeed  they  acted  with  a 
ple7iitude  ofpoiver,as  governors  of  the  church,  but  not  before. 
Nothing  can  be  inferred  then  for  any  necessary  standing  rule 
for  church  government,  from  any  comparison  between  the 
apostles  and  the  seventy  during  the  life  of  Christ,  because 
both  their  missions  were  temporary  and  occasional.   Only  we 
see,  that  because  Christ  did  keep  up  the  number  of  the  twelve 
so  strictly,  that  as  the  seventy  were  a  distinct  number  from 
them,  so  when  one  was  dead,  another  was  to  be  chosen  in  his 
stead,  (which  had  been  needless,  if  they  had  not  been  a  dis- 

1  Luke  X.  12. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  243 

tinct  order  and  college  by  themselves,)  it  is  thence  evident 
that  the  apostoUcal  power  was  a  superior  power  to  any  in 
the  church;  and  that  such  an  inequahty  in  church  officers  as 
was  between  them  and  particular  pastors  of  churches,  is  not 
contrary  to  what  our  Saviour  saith,  when  he  forbids  that  do- 
minion and  authority  in  his  disciples,  which  was  exercised 
by  the  kings  of  the  earth,  Matthew  xx.  25,  Luke  xxii.  25, 
wiiich  places,  because  they  are  brought  by  some  to  take  away 
all  inequality  among  church  officers,  I  shall  so  far  examine 
the  meaning  of  them,  as  they  are  conceived  to  have  any  in- 
fluence thereupon.     First,  then,  I  say,  that  it  is  not  only  the 
abuse  of  civil  power,  which  our  Saviour  forbids  his  disciples, 
but  the  exercise  of  any  such  power  as  that  is.     And  there- 
fore the  papists  are  mistaken,  when  from  the  words  of  Luke, 
vos  autem  non  sic^  they  conclude,  all  power  is  not  forbidden, 
but  only  such  a  tyrannical  power,  as  is  there  spoken  of.   For 
those  words  are  not  a  limitation  and  modification  of  the 
power  spoken  of,  but  a  total  prohibition  of  it;  for  first,  the 
comparison  is  not  between  the  aposles  and  tyrants,  but  be- 
tween them  and  princes,  yea  such  as  Luke  calls  ivt^yitai, 
"  benefactors."^     Indeed,  had  Christ  said,  the  kings  of  the 
earth  abuse  their  authority;  vos  autem  non  sic,  "but  ye  shall 
not  do  SO;"  then  it  would  have  been  only  a  limitation  of  the 
exercise  of  power;  but  the  mere  exercise  of  civil  authority 
being  spoken  of  before,  and  then  it  being  subjoined,  but  you 
not  so;  it  plainly  implies  a  forbidding  of  the  power  spoken  of, 
in  the  persons  spoken  to.     But,  say  they,  the  words  used  in 
Matthew,  are  xar'axD^te'uoDffu/,  "rule,"  and  xarsloixjiafoiKjH',  "e:^- 
ercise  authority,"  which  import  the  abuse  of  their  power, 
which  is  forbidden.     But  I  answer,  first,  in  Luke  it  is  other- 
wise; for  there  it  is  the  simple  xv^iivovaiv,  "  to  be  lord  over," 
and  flovffid^oj'T'Ej,  "  exercise  authority,"  when  it  follows,  vjustj 
^6  ovx  oD-fwj,  "  but  ye  shall  not  do  so."     So  that  if  the  abuse 
be  forbidden  in  one,  the  use  is  in  the  other:  but,  secondly, 
xataxvpisviiv,  by  the  seventy  is  used  frequently  for  xup^xifiv,  and 
n-n,  "  he  has  the  dominion,"  is  often  rendered  by  that  word; 
as  Psalm  Ixxii.  8,  "  he  shall  have  dominion,"  xaiaxv^nvan; 
Psalm  ex.  2,  xa,T;a.xve,i.iVi,  "  rule  thou  in  the  midst  of  thine  ene- 
mies;" in  both  which  places,  it  is  spoken  of  Christ's  kingdom.^ 

oO    Ul  CrCneSlS   i.  28,    fi%ri^i)aa'ts   -ti^v  yriv   x(xv   xaiaxv^CBvaaHs  avtfji, 

•  Tlie  Greek  is,  vfjttti  h  ouk  ouTWf,  which  the  vulgate  renders  as  above.     The 
English  version  supplying  the  ellipsis  has,  But  ye  shall  not  be  so. 

2  Luke  xxii.  25. 

3  Psalm,  lix.    Jer.  iii.    Numb.  xiii.  32. 


244  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  0¥ 

"replenish  the  earth,  and  have  dominion  over  it."  In  all 
which  places,  it  is  used  simply  for  dominion,  and  not  for  tyran- 
nical power. 

It  is  not  then  the  abuse  of  civil  power,  but  the  use  of  it, 
which  is  here  forbidden:  which  will  be  more  evident  secondly, 
from  the  importance  of  the  phrase  hvx  ourcoj,  "not  so,"  which 
answers  to  the  Hebrew  id  x'?,  and  simply  denies  what  went 
before;   as  when  Cain  expresseth  his  fear  of  being  killed, 
Genesis  iv.    14.     The  Sepluagint  render  God's  answer  by 
6vx  ovtioi,  whereby  is  not  denied,  only  the  manner  of  his  death, 
to  be  as  .Abel's  was,  but  it  is  simply  denied;  and  so  Psalm  i.  4, 
the  seventy  render  D';?[i'-in  p  ah  by  dvx  6vt(^i,  6i  dus&tj  6v%  ovtui, 
"  the  wicked  are  not  so."     So,  when  Christ  saith,  Mattheio 
xix,  8,  an  a^x^i  5s  6v  yiyovsv  6W«,  "from  the  beginning  it  was 
not  so;"  it  imports  an  absolute  denial  of  giving  bills  of  divorce 
from  the  beginning.     Thirdly,  This  no  ways  answers  to  the 
scope  of  the  apostles'  contention,  which  was  merely  about 
primacy  and  power,  and  not  at  all  about  the  abuse  of  this 
power.     So  that  by  this  place,  all  affectation  and  use  of  a 
civil,  co-active,  external  power  is  forbidden  to  the  officers  of 
the  church;  the  power  of  the  church  being  only  a  directive, 
voluntary  power;  and  is  rather  a  ministry  than  z.  power,  as 
our  Saviour  expresseth  there,  Mattheio  xx.  26;  Luke  xxii. 
26.     But   having   thus   excluded   all  civil   power  from  the 
governors  of  the  church,  as  such:  I  say,  secondly,  that  this 
place  doth  no  ways  imply  a   prohibition  of  all  inequality 
among  the  governors  of  the  church:   which  is  abundantly 
cleared  by  this  reason,  because  by  the  acknowledgement  of 
all  parties,  the  apostles  had  a  superior  power  over  the  ordi- 
nary pastors  of  churches.     Now  if  the  exercise  of  all  supe- 
riority had  been  forbidden,  this  must  have  been  forbidden  too; 
as  implying  plainly  an  exercise  of  authority  in  some  over 
others  in  the  church.     And  therefore  Musculus  thus  explains 
the  place;  ''But  Christ  did  not  require  that  all  in  his  king- 
dom should  be  equal,  but  that  none  should  desire  to  be  ac- 
counted, or  appear  to  be  great.''^     It  is  not  an  inequality  of 
order,  but  ambition,  which  Christ  forbids;  and  therefore  he 
observes   that  Christ  saith  not.  Let  none   be  great  among 
you,  and  none  first;  which  should  have  been,  if  all  primacy 
and  superiority  had  been  forbidden,  and  a  necessity  of  an 
equality  among  church  officers;  "but  he  that  will  be  great 

'  Non  cxigit  lioc  Christus  ut  omnes  in  regno  suo  sint  aequales,  sed  ne  quis- 
piam  cupiut  magnus  et  primus  haberi  et  videri. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  245 

among  you,  let  him  be  your  minister."  Let  those  that  are 
above  others  look  upon  themselves  as  the  servants  of  others, 
and  not  as  their  masters.  For  God  never  bestows  any  power 
on  any,  for  the  sake  of  those  that  have  it,  but  for  the  sake  of 
those  for  whom  they  are  employed.  When  men  seek  then  their 
own  greatness,  and  not  the  service  of  the  church,  they  flatly 
contradict  this  precept  of  Christ,  "But  with  you  it  shall  not 
be  so."  But  however  an  inequality  of  power  and  order  for 
the  church's  good  is  not  thereby  prohibited:  which  is  sufficient 
for  my  purpose. 

§  8.  The  next  place  to  be  considered,  is  that  in  Matthew 
xviii.  15,  16,  17.  "If  thy  brother  shall  trespass  against  thee, 
go  and  tell  him  his  fault  between  thee  and  him  alone;  if  he 
shall  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy  brother.  But  if  he  will 
not  hear  thee,  then  take  with  thee  one  or  two  more,  that  in 
the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  may  be 
established.  And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  to 
the  church;  but  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  church,  let  him  be 
unto  thee  as  an  heatlien  man  and  a  publican."  It  seems  a 
very  strange  thing  to  consider,  that  this  one  place  hath  been 
j)ressed  by  all  parties  to  serve  under  them,  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  their  own  particular  form  of  government:  so  that, 
(as  the  Jews^  fable  of  the  vianna,)  it  hath  had  a  different 
taste,  according  to  the  diversity  of  the  palates  of  men.  Those 
that  are  for  a  congregational  church,  being  the  first  recep- 
tacle of  church  power,  set  this  place  in  the  front  of  their 
arguments;  those  who,  plead  for  standing  presbyteries,  lay 
elders,  subordination  of  courts,  fetch  all  these  out  of  this 
place;  those  that  are  for  ^  poiuer  of  church  discipline  to  be 
only  lodged  in  a  higher  order  of  church  officers  succeeding 
the  apostles,  derive  the  succession  of  that  power  from  this 
place;  nay  lest  quidlibet  should  not  be  proved  t  quodlibet, 
"lest  anything  you  like  should  not  be  proved  from  anything 
you  like,"  the  papists  despair  not  of  proving  the  constant 
visibility  of  the  church,  the  subordination  of  all  to  the 
pope,  the  infallibility  of  general  councils,  all  out  of  this 
place.  Methinks  then  it  might  be  argmnent  enough  of  the 
incompetency  of  this  place  to  determine  any  oye  particular 
form,  when  it  is  with  equal  confidence  on  all  sides  brought  to 
prove  so  many;  especially  if  it  be  made  appear  that  the 
general  rule  laid  down  in  these  words,  may  be  observed 
under  a  diversity  of  forms  of  government.  For  whether  by 
the  church,  we  mean  the  community  of  the  faithful  in  a  par- 
ticular congregation,  or  the  standing  officers  of  such  a  church, 


246  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

or  a  consistorial  court,  or  synodical  assembly,  or  higher 
church  officers,  it  is  still  the  duty  of  men  hi  case  of  offences, 
to  tell  the  church  for  redress  of  grievances,  or  vindication  of 
the  person  himself,  that  he  hath  discharged  his  duty. 

This  place  then  determines  not  what  this  church  is,  nor 
what  the  form  of  its  government  should  be,  when  the  sense  of 
it  holds  good  and  true  under  such  diversity  of  forms.     But  we 
shall  further  inquire  what  influence  this  place  can  have  upon 
the  modelling  the  government  in  the  church  of  God.     For 
Chamier^  tells  us,  the  prima  poUtise  ecclesiasticss  origo^  "the 
origin  of  the  ecclesiastic  polity,"  is  to  be  found  in  these  words; 
it  will  be  then  worth  our  inquiry  to  see  what  foundation  for 
church  government  can  be  drawn  out  of  these  words.     In 
which  the  variety  of  expositions,  (like  a  multitude  of  physicians 
to  a  distempered  patient,)  have  left  it  worse  than  they  found 
it;  I  mean  more  difficult  and  obscure.     We  shall  therefore 
endeavour   to  lay  aside  all  preconceptions  by  other  men's 
judgments  and  opinions,  and  see  what  innate  light  there  is  in 
the  text  itself  to  direct  us  to  the  full  sense  and  meaning  of  it. 
Two  things  the  great  difficulty  of  the  place  lies  in,  Whctt  the 
offences  are  here  spoken  of?    What  the  church  is  lohich  jnust 
be  spoken  to?     For  the  First,  I  conceive  it  evident  to  any 
unprejudiced  mind,  that  the  matter  our  Saviour  speaks  of, 
is  a  matter  of  private  offence  and  injury,  and  not  a  matter  of 
scandal,  as  such  considered  in  a  church  society;  which  I  make 
appear  thus.     First,  From  the  parallel  place  to  this,  Luke 
xvii.  3,  "  If  thy  brother  trespass  against  thee,  rebuke  him;  and 
if  he  repent,  forgive  him."     This  can  be  nothing  else  bufa 
matter  of  private  injury,  because  it  is  in  the  power  of  every 
private  person  to  forgive  it;  which  it  was  not  in  his  power  to 
do,  were  it  a  matter  of  scandal  to  the  whole  church;  unless 
we  make  it  among  Christians,  (as  it  was  among  the  Jews,) 
that  every  private  person  might  excommunicate  another,  and 
to  release  him  afterward.     Secondly,  It  manifestly  appears 
from  St.   Peter's  words  next  after  this  paragraph,  Matth. 
xviii.  20,  "  Lord,  how  often  shall  my  brother  sin  against  me, 
and  I  forgive  him,  till  seven  times?"  &c.  Christ  answers  hiin, 
"  till  seventy  |imes  seven,"  that  is,  as  often  as  he  doth  it.  And 
thence  Christ   brings  the  parable  of  the  king  forgiving  his 
servants,  verse  23.     Thirdly,  Were  it  meant  of  any  scanda- 


•  Tom.  2,1.  10,  c.  5,  s.  2. 

^  "  Prima  origo"  is  evidently  a  pleonasm,  and  such  in  the  ancient  languages 
often  elegantly  render  the  phrase  intensive. — Am.  Ed. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  247 

Ions  sin  committed  with  the  privacy  of  any  particulnr  person, 
(as  many  understand  trespassing  against  thee,  that  is,  te  con- 
scio,  "thee  knowing,  or  conscious  of  it,")  then  this  inconve- 
nience must  necessarily  follow,  that  matters  of  scandal  must 
be  brought  to  the  church's  cognizance  when  there  can  be  no 
way  to  decide  them;  that  is,  wiien  one  otfends,  and  only  one 
person  knows  it;  here  will  be  a  single  affirmation  on  one  side, 
and  denial  on  the  other  side,  and  so  there  can  be  no  way  to 
decide  it;  the  matter  here  spoken  of  then  is  somewhat  only 
relating  to  the  offence  or  injury  of  some  particular  person, 
and  not  a  matter  of  scandal  to  the  whole  church. 

The  question  then  as  propounded  to  be  spoken  to  by  our 
■  Saviour  is,  "What  is  to  be  done  in  case  of  private  offences 
between  man  and  man?"  and  not  in  case  of  secret  sins  against 
God,  and  scandalous  to  the  church?  Now  to  this  our  Saviour 
lays  down  his  answer  gradually:  first,  there  must  be  private 
admonition;  if  that  succeed  not, ^  admonition  before  loit- 
nesses;  if  not  that,  te/tinff  the  church;  if  not  that  either,  re- 
puting  him  as  a  heathen  and  publican.  Now  in  this  answer, 
we  must  conceive  our  Saviour  speaks  as  to  an  ordinary  case, 
so  in  a  way  easy  to  be  understood  by  all  that  heard  him: 
and  therefore  he  must  speak  in  allusion  to  what  was  at  that 
lime  among  the  Jews  in  such  cases,  which  is  freely  acknow- 
ledged both  by  Calvin  and  Beza^  upon  that  place.^  "For  this 
certainly  appears  to  be  said,  as  if  to  the  Jews;  at  least  from 
what  he  adds:  let  him  be  to  thee  as  a  heathen,  and  as  a  Ro- 
man tax-gatherer."^  We  must  then  see  what  the  custom 
was  among  the  Jews  in  such  cases,  and  how  far  our  Saviour 
doth  either  approve  the  custom  received,  or  appoint  new. 
The  law  was  very  strict  in  case  of  offences,  "for  every  man 
in  any  wise  to  rebuke  his  neighbour,  and  not  to  suffer  sin  upon 
him,"'*  Jirguendo  argues,  "reproving  thou  shalt  reprove;" 
our  old  translation  renders  it,  "Thou  shalt  plainly  rebuke  thy 
neighbour."  Now  this  piece  of  necessary  discipline  our  Sa- 
viour endeavours  to  recover  among  them,  which  it  seems  was 
grown  much  out  of  use  with  them.  For  Itabbi  Chanina,  as 
Mr.  Selden^  observes,  gave  this  as  one  reason  of  the  destruc- 

'  Beza  in  Inc. 

2  N.im  ccr\h  tanquam  de  Jadaeis  haec  dici  apparet,  saltern  ex  eo  quod  addit,  sit 
tibi  sicut  etlinicus  et  publicanus. 

3  Tlie  Vulgate  translated  tsXwvh?  by  publicanus,  hence  publican  in  our  version; 
but  in  both  languages  it  signified  a  tax-gatherer;  and  it  is  easy  to  perceive  how 
odious  a  Roman  tax-gatherer  must  have  been  to  the  Jews  whilst  they  had  "to 
pay  tribute  to  Caesar." — Am.  Ed. 

*  Lev.  X.  17. 

5  De  Syned.  1.  1,  o,  9.     In  Gemar.  Babyl.  ad  tit.  Rhabbath.  c.  16,  fo.  119. 


248  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

tion  of  Jerusalem,  "because  they  left  off  reproving  one  an- 
another:"  Non  excisa  fuissent  Hierosoylma,  nisi  quoniam 
alter  alterum  non  coarguebat ,  "Jerusalem  had  not  been  de- 
stroyed, had  one  not  neglected  to  reprove  the  other."  Our 
Saviour  therefore  enforceth  this  law  upon  them  in  case  of 
oifences;  first,  to  deal  plainly  with  their  neighbour  in  reprov- 
ing him:  but  our  Saviour  rests  not  here,  but  beii]g  himself  a 
pattern  of  meekness  and  charity,  he  would  not  have  tiiem  to 
rest  in  a  bare  private  admonition,  but  to  show  their  own 
readiness  to  be  reconciled,  and  willingness  to  do  good  to  the 
soul  of  the  olfending  party  thereby,  he  adviseth  further  to  take 
two  or  three  witnesses  with  them,  hoping  thereby  to  work 
more  upon  him:  but  if  still  he  contiimes  refractory,  and  is  not 
sensible  of  his  miscarriage,  tell  it  the  church.  What  the 
church  here  is,  is  the  great  controversy.  Some,  as  Bezu  and 
his  followers,  understand  an  ecclesiastical  sanhedrim  among 
the  Jews,^  which  had  the  proper  cognizance  of  ecclesiastical 
causes;  but  it  will  be  hard  to  prove  any  such  sanhedrim  in 
use  among  them;  the  priests  and  Levites  indeed  were  very 
often  chosen  into  the  sanhedrim^  (which  it  may  be  is  the 
ground  of  the  mistake,  but  there  was  no  such  sanhedrim  among 
them,  which  did  not  respect  matters  criminal  and  civil.  So  we 
must  understand  what  Josephus^  speaks  of  the  priests  among 
the  Jews:  "The  priests  were  always  very  studious  of  the  law, 
and  other  matters  of  concernment.  These  were  appointed  as 
the  overseers  of  all  things,  judges  of  controversies,  and  the 
punishers  of  condemned  persons."**  Thus  we  see,  he  is  so  far 
from  attributing  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  court  to  them,  that  he 
seems  to  make  them  the  only  judges  in  civil  and  criminal 
causes.  Others  by  the  church,  understand  the  Christian 
church;  but  herein  they  are  divided;  some  understanding  by 
it  only  the  officers  of  the  church:  so  Chrysostom,  toi<;  n^otsE- 
B^ivovsi,,  or  "those  diligently  occupied  about  any  concern  or 
place."  Euthemius  ecclesiam  nunc  vocal  presides  sidelium 
ecclesise,  "  calls  a  church,  the  chief  of  the  faithful  of  a  church." 
Others  understand  it  not  in  its  representative  notion,  but  in 
its  diffusive  capacity,  as  taking  in  all  the  members.  But  our 
Saviour  speaking  to  a  present  case,  must  be  supposed  to  lay 
down  a  present  remedy,  which  could  not  be,  if  he  gave  only 

•  V.  Grotiiim  in  Matth.  v.  12.  "  Selden  de  Syned.  1,  2,  c.  8, 
3  Josepl).  1.  2,  cont.  Appion. 

*  TouTojj  xai  nv  Kcn Tovvofxov  x.ai  touv  uWaivs  Trirnhvfjiariiiv  ax^e^ni;  imfxlXsia,  xai  ya» 

i£J6if  Brct.)(6>iirav. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  249 

rules  for  governing  his  chnrch  which  was  not  as  yet  gathered 
nor  formed,  there  being  then  no  court  ecclesiastical  for  them 
to  appeal  unto.  Suppose  then  this  case  to  have  fallen  out 
immediately  after  our  Saviour's  speaking  it,  that  one  brother 
should  trespass  against  another,  either  then  notwithstanding 
our  Saviour's  speech,  (which  speaks  to  the  present  time,  "go 
and  tell  the  church,")  the  offended  brother  is  left  without  a 
power  of  redress;  or  he  must  understand  it  in  some  sense  of 
the  word  church,  which  was  then  in  use  among  the  Jews. 
And  these,  who  tell  us,  "That  unless  fxx^iysta  be  understood 
for  a  church  as  we  understand  it,  it  would  be  no  easy  matter 
for  us  now  to  conceive  what  the  Holy  Ghost  meant  by  it,"^ 
would  do  well  withal  to  consider  how  those  to  whom  Christ 
spoke  should  apprehend  his  meaning  if  he  spoke  in  a  sense 
they  never  heard  of  before.  And,  certainly,  our  best  way  to 
understand  the  meaning  of  scripture  is  to  consider  what,  of 
luhom,  to  ivhom,  the  scripture  speaks;  for  although  the  scrip- 
ture, as  a  rule  of  faith  for  us,  be  supposed  to  be  so  written,  as 
to  be  easily  understood  by  us,  yet  as  the  parcels  of  it  were 
spoken  upon  several  occasions,  they  must  be  supposed  to  be 
so  spoken,  as  to  be  apprehended  by  them  to  whom  they  were 
spoken  in  the  common  sense  of  the  words,  if  nothing  peculiar 
be  expressed  in  the  speech,  whereby  to  restrain  them  to  an- 
other sense.  And  therefore  the  church  must  be  understood 
in  the  same  sense  wherein  the  word  '7np,  <■'•  kahal,d.\\  assembly 
or  congregation,"  or  the  Syriac  answering  to  it,  was  appre- 
hended among  the  Jews  in  our  Saviour's  time.  Which  could 
not  be  for  any  new  consistory  or  sanhedrim  to  be  erected  under 
the  gospel.  Thence  others  conceiving  that  Christ  did  speak 
according  to  the  custom  of  the  Jews,  by  the  church,  under- 
stand nothing  else  but  the  sanhedrim,  and  so  make  the  sense 
of  the  words  to  be  this:  The  case  our  Saviour  speaks  to,  is 
that  of  private  quarrels,  wherein  our  Saviour  lays  down  two 
directions  in  a  way  of  charity, /^r/i'a/fe  adm,n7iitiou,  nnd  before 
witnesses;  but  if  the  party  continues  refractory,  then  it  may 
be  lawful  to  summons  him  before  the  courts  of  judicature 
among  them,  the  triumvirate,  the  twenty-three,  or  the  great 
sanhedrim;  for  although  the  Romans  had  taken  away  the 
power  of  the  Jews  in  capital  matters,  yet  they  allowed  them 
liberty  of  judging  in  the  case  of  private  quarrels;  but  if  he 
neglect  to  hear  the  sanhedrim,  then  it  may  be  lawful  to  im- 
plead him  before  the  governor  of  the  province  in  his  court  of 

1  Gelespy,  Aaron's  Rod,  I,  3,  c,  2,  p.  552,  1.  2,  c.  9,  p.  296. 
32 


SiW  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

judicature,  by  which  heathens  and  pubUcans  were  to  be 
judged:  which  is  meant  by  let  him  be  to  thee,  not  as  a  brother 
Jew,  but  as  a  heathen  and  a  publican.  This  exposition  is 
said  to  be  first  broached  by  Erastus,  but  much  improved  and 
enlarged  by  Reverend  Bishop  Bilson,^  who  spends  a  whole 
chapter  upon  it.  But  this  exposition,  though  it  seems  fair 
and  plausible,  yet  there  are  several  things  in  it  which  keep  me 
from  embracing  it;  as,  ^r*/,  it  seems  not  very  probable  that 
our  Saviour  should  send  his  disciples  to  whom  he  speaks,  to 
the  Jewish  sanhedri??i  for  the  ending  any  controversies  arising 
among  themselves;  knowing  how  bitter  enemies  they  were  to 
all  the  followers  of  Christ.  Secondly, \i  seems  not  very  agree- 
able with  the  scope  of  our  Saviour's  speech,  which  was  to 
take  up  differences  as  much  as  may  be  among  his  disciples, 
and  to  make  them  show  all  lenity  and  forbearance  towards 
those  that  had  offended  them,  and  to  do  good  to  the  souls  of 
those  that  had  injured  and  provoked  them;  whereas  this  com- 
mand of  telling  the  sanhedri7n, and  impleading  offenders  before 
heathen  courts,  tends  apparently  to  heighten  the  bitterness 
and  animosities  of  men's  spirits  one  against  another:  and  lays 
religion  so  open  to  obloquies,  which  makes  Paiil  so  severely 
reprove  the  "Christians  at  Corinth  for  going  to  law  before 
heathen  magistrates;"^  therefore  to  say  that  Christ  allows  there 
going  to  law  before  heathens,  ar.d  Paul  to  forbid  it,  were,  in- 
stead of  finding  a  way  to  end  the  differences  among  Christians, 
to  make  one  between  Christ  and  Faid.  Thirdly,  the  thing 
chiefly  aimed  at  by  Christ,  is  not  a  man's  vindication  of  him- 
self, or  recovering  losses  by  injuries  received,  but  the  reco- 
vering and  gaining  the  offending  brother;  which  evidently 
appears  by  what  our  Saviour  adds  to  the  using  admonition  in 
private,  "if  he  shall  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy  brotlier." 
Now  xs^Satj'sii/,  "to  gain,"  in  the  New  Testament  is  used  for 
the  conversion  and  turning  others  from  sin.  "  That  I  might 
gain  them  that  are  under  the  law,"  1  Corinth,  ix.  19,  .20,  &c. 
So  1  Peter  iii.  1,  explained  by  James  v.  20.  Our  Saviour 
then  speaks  not  to  the  manner  of  proceeding  as  to  civil  inju- 
ries, which  call  for  restitution,  but  to  such  as  call  for  recon- 
ciliation. And  so  the  case  I  conceive  is  that  of  private  dif- 
ferences and  quari'els  between  men,  and  not  lawsuits  nor 
civil  causes:  I  mean  such  differences  as  respect  persons  and 
not  things;  for  the  ending  of  which  our  Saviour  lays  down 
these  rules.     And  therefore  I  cannot  but  wonder  to  see  some 

'  Thes.  412,  Perpetual  Government,  c.  4.  2  1  Oor.  vi.  6. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  aoVERNMENT.  251 

men  insist  so  much  on  that  place  against  such  an  exposition 
oi  Luke  xii.  14,  where  Christ  saith,  "Who  made  me  a  judge, 
and  a  divider  among  you?"     For  doth  it  any  ways  follow, 
because  Christ  would  not  take  upon  him  to  be  a  temporal 
judge  among  the  Jews,  therefore  he  should  take  no  course  for 
the  ending  differences  among  his  disciples,  and  the  taking 
away  all  animosities  from  among  them?     Nay,  on  the  con- 
trary, doth  not  our  Saviour  very  often  designedly  speak  to  this 
very  purpose,  to  root  out  all  bitterness,  malice,  envy,  and 
rancor  from  men's  spirits,  and  to  persuade  them  to  forgive  in 
juries,  even  to  pray  for  persecutors,  and  by  any  means  to  be 
reconciled  to  their  brethren.   Which  he  makes  to  be  a  duty  of 
so  great  necessity,  "that  if  a  man  had  brought  his  gift  to  the 
altar,  and  remembered  his  brother  had  aught  against  him,  he 
bids  him  leave  his  gifts  there,  and  go,  be  reconciled  to  his 
brother,  and  then  otfer  up  his  gift."^     We  see  hereby  how 
suitable  it  was  to  our  Saviour's  doctrine  and  design  to  lay 
down  rules  for  the  ending  of  any  differences  arising  among 
his  disciples;  and  this  being  now  cleared  to  be  the  state  of  the 
case,  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  resolve  what  is  meant  by  telling 
the  church.    Which  I  make  not  to  be  any  ajjpeal  iod,  juridi- 
cal court,  acting  authoritatively  over  the  persons  brought 
before  it,  but  the  third  and  highest  step  of  charity  in  a  man 
towards  a  person  that  hath  offended  him,  viz.  that  when 
neither  private  admonition,  nor  before  two  or  three  witnesses 
would  serve  to  reclaim  the  offender,  then  to  call  a  select  com- 
pany together,   (which  is   the  natural  import  of  the  word 
ixx-Kviaio^y-  and  before  them  all  to  lay  open  the  cause  of  the 
breach  and  difference  between  them,  and  to  refer  it  to  their 
arbitration  to  compose  and  end  it.     Which  sense  of  the  place, 
I  humbly  conceive  to  have  the  least  violence  in  it,  and  in 
every  part  of  it  to  be  most  genuine  and  natural,  and  fully 
agreeable  to  the  received  practice  among  the  Jews:  which  the 
author  of  the  book  Musar^  cited  by  Drusius,  fully  acquaints 
us  with,  whose  words  I  shall  transcribe,  as  being  a  plain  para- 
phrase on  these  of  our  Saviour.     "He  who  reproves  his  fel- 
low, should  do  it,  at  first  calmly,  with  gentle  words,  between 
himself  and  him  alone,  so  that  he  expose  him  not  to  shame. 
If  he  repent,  it  is  well;  otherwise  he  should  between  them- 
selves, keenly  reprove,  and  make  him  ashamed.     If  he  have 

1  Matth.  V.  23,  24. 

2  From  EK  xaAsiv,  to  call  out  of;  therefere  «K«Xi)ff"i«,  which  we  translate  church, 
is  a  company  called  out  of  the  world. 

sPreeterit.  lib.  ],  p.  43, 


052  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

no  remorse,  he  should  call  his  fellows,  and  put  him  to  the 
blush  before  them.  But  in  the  event  that  nothing  avails,  he 
must  expose  him  before  many,  and  publish  his  fault.  For 
certainly  hypocrites  should  be  unmasked."^  That  which  this 
aulhor  ca.\\s  pudefacere  eum  coram  7nultis,^^Xo  put  him  to 
shame  before  many,"  is  that  which  our  Saviour  means  when 
he  bids  him  tell  the  church,  or  the  congregation,  as  our  old 
translation  renders  it.  This  the  Jews  called  reproving  of  men, 
D"j"i3,  before  "a  multitude,"  as  the  Vulg.  Latin  though  falsely 
renders  that  place,  Leviticus  xix.  17,  publice  argue  eum, 
"  publicly  reprove  him:"  and  to  this  the  apostle  may  allude 
when  he  speaks  of  the  gj  sTti'Ti.fiia  vj  vho  tujv  rt%st,oviov,  2  Corinth. 
ii.  6,  ^'Censure  of  many  f^  and  the  reproof  t^wrttoj;  ^avT'cov,  '■'■  be- 
fore all,"  1  Tim.  v.  20,  which  was  to  be  in  matters  of  public 
scandal  upon  religion,  before  the  on^in,  "  wild  beasts,"  i.  e. 
barbarians,  or  didiJ?,  "  robbers,"  as  the  Jews  call  them:  but  in 
case  the  offender  should  still  7tae,axovitv,  "  refuse  to  hear,"  or 
slight  this  overture  of  reconciliation,  before  the  company 
selected  for  hearing  the  case;  then  saith  our  Saviour,  look 
upon  him  as  an  obstinate  refractory  creature,  and  have  no 
more  to  do  with  him,  than  with  a  heathen  and  ^.  publican;  by 
-which  terms  the  most  wilful  obstinate  sinners  were  set  out 
among  the  Jews,  and  by  which  our  Saviour  means  a  man's 
withdrawing  himself,  as  much  as  in  him  lies,  from  all  familiar 
society  with  such  a  person.  And  thus  saith  Christ,  "whatso- 
ever you  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  Heaven,  and  what- 
soever you  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  Heaven,"^  that 
is,  if  after  all  your  endeavours  of  reconciliation,  the  offender 
will  hearken  to  no  agreement,  it  is  an  evidence  and  token  that 
man's  sin  is  bound  upon  him,  (that  is,  shall  not  be  pardoned 
so  long  as  he  continues  impenitent,)  but  if  he  repent  of  his 
offence,  and  you  be  reconciled,  as  the  offence  is  removed  on 
earth  thereby,  so  the  sin  is  loosed  in  Heaven,  that  is,  forgiven.^ 
The  guilt  of  sin  that  binds,  it  being  an  obligation  to  punish- 
ment; and  so  the  pardon  of  sin  that  looseth,  as  it  cancels  that 
obligation.  And  so  Grotius  observes,  that  hav,  "to  bind,"  is 
the  same  with  x^atnv,  "  to  hold,"  and  %vnv,  "  to  loose,"  with 

1  Qui  arguit  socium  suuni,  debet  primuni  hoc  facere  placide  inter  se,  et  ipsutn 
solum,  verbis  mollibus,  ita  ut  non  pudefaciat  eum.  Si  resipiscit,  bene  est;  sin, 
debet  cum  acritSr  arguere  et  pudefacere  inter  se  et  ipsum.  Si  non  resipiscit, 
debet  adhibere  socios,  ipsumque  coram  iliis  pudore  afficere;  si  nee  mode  quic- 
quam  proficit,  debet  eum  pudefacere  coram  multis,  ejusque  delictum  publicare. 
Nam  curte  detegendi  sunt  hypocritae. 

2  MalUi.  xviii.  18. 

3  V.  Rainold's  Conf.  with  Hart.  cap.  2,  div.  .3,  Grot,  in  Mat.  16. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  253 

a^i,Evah  "to  release  from  punishment,"  what  is  called  retain- 
ing' in  one  place,  is  binding  in  another:  and  what  is  loosing 
in  one  place,  is  remitting  in  tlie  otlier.  But  now  although  I 
assert  this  to  be  the  true,  proper,  genuine  meaning  of  this  diffi- 
cult place,  yet  I  deny  not  but  that  this  place  hath  influence 
upon  church  government;  but  I  say  the  influence  it  hath,  is 
only  by  way  of  accommodation,  and  by  analogy  deduced  from 
it.  According  to  which,  these  things  I  conceive  have  founda- 
tion is  these  words:  First,  gradual  appeals  from  the  method 
here  laid  down  by  our  Saviour.  Secondly,  church  censures, 
and  the  duty  of  submitting  to  church  authority:  for  although 
before  any  church  power  was  actually  set  up,  (as  when  our 
Saviour  spake  these  words  then  there  was  none,)  yet  after 
that  church  government  was  fixed  and  set  up,  it  must  in  rea- 
son be  supposed  that  all  matters  of  the  nature  of  scandals  to 
the  church  must  be  decided  here.  Thirdly,  the  laxofulness 
of  the  use  of  excommunication  in  Christian  churches;  for  if 
every  particular  person  might  withdraw  from  the  society  of 
such  a  one  as  continues  refractory  in  his  offences,  then  much 
more  may  a  whole  society,  and  the  officers  of  it  declare  such 
a  one  to  be  avoided  both  in  religious  and  familiar  civil  so- 
ciety, which  is  the  formal  nature  of  excommunication.  Herein 
we  see  the  wisdom  of  our  Saviour,  who  in  speaking  to  a  par- 
ticular case,  hath  laid  down  such  general  rules  as  are  of  per- 
petual use  in  the  church  of  God  for  accommodating  differences 
arising  therein.  Thus  have  we  hitherto  cleared  that  our  Sa- 
viour hath  determined  no  more  of  church  government  than 
what  is  applicable  to  a  diversity  of  particular  forms,  and  so 
hath  not  by  any  law  or  practice  of  his  own  determined  the 
necessity  of  any  one  form. 


254  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  next  thing  pleaded  for  determining  the  form  of  government,  is  apostoiical 
practice;  two  things  inquired  into  concerning  that,  What  it  was?  How  far  it 
binds?  The  apostles  invested  with  the  power  and  authority  of  governing  the 
whole  church  of  Christ  by  their  commission,  Jo,  xx.  21;  Mntlh.  xxviii.  18. 
What  the  apostles  did  in  order  to  the  church  government  before  Pentecost, 
xXDjojaTroro^Df,  TOTTo;  (Jiof  explained.  How  the  apostles  did  divide  provinces; 
whether  Paul  and  Peter  were  confined  to  the  circumcision  and  uncircum- 
cision,  and  different  churches  erected  by  them  in  the  same  cities?  What  the 
apostles  did  in  order  to  settling  particular  churches?  The  names  and  offices 
of  bishops,  presbyters,  deacons,  considered.  Four  general  considerations  laid 
down  about  the  apostles'  practice.  First,  It  cannot  be  fully  known  what  it 
was.  Second,  Great  probability,  they  observe  no  one  certain  form  in  seltling 
churches;  proved  from  Epiphanius,  Jerome,  Ambrose  or  Hilary.  Third,  Their 
case  different  from  ours  in  regard  of  the  paucity  of  believers.  Fourth,  If 
granted  for  any  form,  yet  proves  not  the  thing  in  question.  For,  1,  Offices  ap- 
pointed by  them  are  ceased.  Widows,  deaconesses  abolished.  2,  Riles  and 
customs  apostolical  grown  out  of  use.  1,  Such  as  were  founded  upon  apos- 
tolical precepts,  Acts  xv.  29,  considered.  2,  Such  as  were  grounded  on  tlieir 
practice,  holy  kiss,  love  feasts,  dipping  in  baptism,  community  of  goods,  with 
several  others. 

§  1.  Having  found  nothing,  either  in  our  Saviour's  prac- 
tice, or  in  the  rules  laid  down  by  him,  (conceived  to  respect 
church  government,)  vvhicli  determines  any  necessity  of  one 
particular  form;  the  only  argument  remaining  which  can  be 
conceived  of  sufficient  strength  to  found  the  necessity  of  any 
one  form  of  government,  is  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  who 
were  by  their  employment  and  commission  entrusted  with  the 
government  of  the  church  of  God.  For  our  Saviour  after  his 
resurrection  taking  care  for  the  planting  and  governing  of  his 
church  after  his  ascension  to  glory,  doth  at  two  several  times 
call  his  apostles  together,  and  gives  now  their  full  charter 
and  commisssion  to  them;  the  first,  containing  chiefly  the 
power  itself  conferred  upon  them,  John  xx.  21.  The  other, 
the  extent  of  that  power,  Matth.  xxviii.  19.     In  the  former 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  255 

our  Saviour  tells  them,  Jis  the  father  had  sent  him,  so  did  he 
send  them.  Which  we  must  not  understand  of  a  parity  and 
equality  of  power,  but  in  a  similitude  of  the  mission:  that  as 
Christ  before  had  managed  the  great  affairs  of  his  church  in 
his  own  person,  so  now,  (having  according  to  the  prophecies 
made  of  him  at  the  end  of  seventy  tveeks,  "made  reconciliation 
for  iniquity  by  his  death,  and  brought  in  everlasting  righteous- 
ness by  his  resurrection,)  he  despatcheth  abroad  his  gospel 
heralds  to  proclaim  the  jubilee^  now  begun,  and  the  act  of 
indemnity  now  past  upon  all  penitent  offenders,  which  is  the 
sense  of  the  other  part  of  their  commission:  "Whose  soever  sins 
ye  remit,  they  are  remitted;  and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain, 
they  are  retained,"  John  xx.  23;  i.  e.  as  many  as  upon  the 
preaching  the  gospel  by  you,  shall  come  in  and  yield  up  them- 
selves to  the  tenders  of  grace  proclaimed  therein,  shall  have 
their  former  rebellions  pardoned;  but  such  as  will  still  con- 
tinue obstinate,  their  former  guilt  shall  still  continue  to  bind 
them  over  to  deserved  punishment.  And  to  the  end  the  apos- 
tles might  have  some  evidence  of  the  power  thus  conferred 
upon  them,  "  He  breathes  the  Holy  Ghost  on  them,  and  said, 
receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost;"^  which  we  are  not  to  understand 
of  the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Ho/y  Ghost,  which  were  not 
received  till  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Act.  ii.  1;  but  of  the  au- 
thoritative poiver  of  preaching  the  gospel,  which  was  now 
conferred  upon  them,  by  the  solemn  rite  of  breathing  the 
Holy  Ghost  on  the  apostles.  In  which  sense  the  church  of 
England  understands  that  expression  in  the  ordination  of 
ministers,  as  it  implies  only  the  conferring  thereby  an  authority 
for  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  which  being  conveyed  by 
ordination,^  is  fitly  expressed  by  the  same  words  which  our 
Saviour  used  in  the  conferring  the  same  power  upon  his 
apostles  at  his  sending  them  forth  to  be  gospel  preachers. 

After  this  comes  the  solemn  appointed  meeting  of  Christ 
with  his  disciples  at  the  mountain  of  Galilee,'^  (where  in  pro- 
bability, besides  the  eleven,  were  present  the  five  hundred 
brethren  at  once.^)  And  here  Christ  more  solemnly  inaugu- 
rates the  apostles  in  their  office,  declaring  all  power  to  be  in 
his  hands;  and  therefore  appoints  the  apostles  "  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature,"^  that  is,  to  all  men  indefinitely, 
GetUiles  as  well  as  Jews,  which  Matthew''  fully  expresseth  by 

•  Dan.  ix.  24,  with  Rom.  iv.  15.  2  John  xx.  12. 

3  Capiendum  cum  grano  salis.  ■»  Mat.  xxviii.  13. 

5  1  Cor.  XV.  6.  6  Mark  xvi.  15. 
7  Mat.  xviii.  19. 


256  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

all  nations.  Now  are  the  apostles  left  as  chief  governors  of 
the  church  under  Christ;  and  in  this  last  commission  wherein 
the  extent  of  the  apostles'  power  is  more  fully  expressed, 
there  is  nothing  mentioned  of  any  order  for  the  government 
of  the  church  under  them,  nor  what  course  should  be  taken  by 
the  church  after  their  decease.  All  that  remains  then  to  be 
inquired  into,  is  what  the  apostles'  practice  was,  and  how  far 
they  acted  for  the  determining  any  one  form  of  government 
as  necessary  for  the  church. 

The  apostles  being  thus  invested  in  their  authority,  we  pro- 
ceed to  consider  the  exercise  of  this  authority  for  the  govern- 
ing of  the  church.  And  here  we  are  to  consider,  that  the 
apostles  did  not  presently  upon  their  last  commission  from 
Christ  go  forth  abroad  in  the  world  to  preach,  but  were  com- 
manded by  Christ  to  go  first  to  Jerusalem,  and  there  to 
expect  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost  according  to  our 
Saviour's  own  appointment,  Luke  xxiv.  49.  And  therefore 
what  Mark  adds,  Mark  xvi.  20,  that  after  Christ's  appear- 
ance to  them,  "the  apostles  went  abroad  and  preached  every- 
where, working  miracles,"  must  either  be  understood  of  what 
they  did  only  in  their  way  returning  from  Galilee  to  Jerusa- 
lem, or  else  more  probably  of  what  they  did  indefinitely 
afterwards.  For  presently  after  we  find  them  met  together 
at  Jerusalem.,  whence  they  came  from  Mount  Olivet  where 
Christ's  ascension  was.  Here  we  find  them  employed  Iv  tio 
if^w,  "in  a  sacred  place,"i  saith  Saint  Luke  in  his  gospel, 
which  we  render  the  temple;  but  I  understand  it  rather  as 
referring  to  the  action  than  the  place,  and  is  best  explained 
by  what  Liike  saith  in  ^cts  i.  14,  they  were  Tt^oaxa^ti^owts^  tvi 
Ti^oaivxiq  xav  tyj  Ss^asv,  "continuing  in  prayer  and  supplication." 
AimI  that  it  cannot  be  meant  of  the  temple,  appears  by  the 
mention  of  the  irti^uov,  "an  upper  room,"^  where  they  con- 
tinued together.  For  that  it  should  be  meant  of  any  of  the 
vrti^coa  about  the  temple,  is  most  improbable  to  conceive, 
because  not  only  those  ninety  cells  about  the  temple  were 
destined  and  appointed  for  the  priests  in  their  several  Ifrjixsptai, 
or  times  of  ministration;^  and  it  is  most  unlikely  the  chief 
priests  and  masters  of  the  temple  should  sufier  those  whom 
they  hated  so  much  to  continue  so  near  them  without  any 
molestation  or  disturbance.    While  the  apostles  continue  here 


'  Luke  xxiv.  52;  Acts  i.  12;  Luke  xxiv.  53. 

2  Acts  i.  13. 

3  V.  L.  Empor.  in  Cod.  Middoth.  c.  4,  sect.  5. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  257 

they  proceed  to  the  choice  of  a  new  apostle  instead  oi  Judas, 
thereby  making  it  appear  how  necessary  that  number  was  to 
the  first  forming  of  churches,  wiien  the  vacant  place  must  be 
supplied  with  so  great  solemnity.     Which  office  of  apostle- 
ship,  (which  Jndns  once  had,  and  Matthias  was  now  chosen 
into,)  is  called  by  Peter  xxri^oi  bt,axovtai  xai  aTto^oXrii,  "the  por- 
tion, or  lot,  of  the   ministry   and  aposlleship,"  ,^cts  i.  25, 
whicli  a  learned  interpreter  renders,  the  portion  of  his  apos- 
tleship^  or  the  pj'ovi nee  which  fell  to  Judas,  or  his  lot  in  the 
distribution  among  tlie  apostles,  which,  saith   he,  is  called 
6  rortos  o  tSioj,  "his  proper  place,"  into  wiiich  Matthias  did 
xo^cv9r;vai,  ''go,  and  from  which  Judas  fell  by  his  sin."     This 
exposition  is  very  often  suggested  by  that  learned  author:  but, 
(with  all  due  reverence  to  his  name  and  memory,)  I  cannot 
see  any  such  evidence  either  from  scripture  or  reason,  to 
enforce  any  such  exposition  of  either  phrase,  yielding  us  suf- 
ficient ground  to  forsake  the  received  sense  of  botji  of  them. 
For  x\r;^oi  drtoj-oTLTys  is  plainly  nothing  else  but  "that  office  of 
the  apostleship"  which  belonged  to  Judas,  without  any  rela- 
tion  to  a  province;  and  6  tortoi  o  l8toc,  is  that  proper  place 
which  belonged  to  Judas,  as  he  is  called  moj  drtw^f tas,  "the  son 
of  perdition,"  and  no  other.     But  the  very  foundation  of  this 
mistake,  is,  that  the  several  jt?rowmce,s,  into  which  the  apostles 
were  to  go  for  preaching  the  gospel,  were  distributed  among 
them  before  they  were  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  an 
hypothesis  that  will  not  easily  be  granted  by  any  that  do  but 
impartially  consider  these  things.  That  x'i \\\q provinces  were  so 
distributed  among  them,  it  must  be  either  before  the  death  of 
Christ,  or  after;  and  it  must  be  before,  if  Jit<f/a,y  had  a  peculiar 
province  assigned  to  him,  which  this  exposition  necessarily  im- 
plies; but  how  provinces  could  be  divided  among  them  before 
they  had  their  commission  given  them  to  preach  to  all  nations, 
is  somewhat  hard  to  understand.  It  must  be  then  immediately 
after  Christ  had  bid  them  preach  to  every  creature,  that  they 
thus  distributed  the  provinces  among  them;  but  several  things 
make  this  very  improbable.     First,  The  gross  mistake  of  the 
apostles  concerning  the  very  nature  of  Christ's  kingdom,  as 
we  read  in  Jicts  i.  6,  when  they  jointly  asked  Christ,  "Lord, 
wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel?"     They 
dreamed  still  of  a  temporal  kingdom,  according  to  the  common 
opinion  of  the  Jews;  and,  is  it  probable  they  should  distribute 

1  Annot.  in  loc.  Dissert.  3,  c.  4.    Schism,  c.  4,  sect.  13.     Answ.  tg  tlic  Cath, 
c.  4,  s.  2.     Schism  disarmed,  Ans.  c.  3,  s.  4. 
33 


253  THE  DIVINE   RIGHT  OP 

among  themselves  the  several  provinces  lor  preaching  the 
gospel,  who  thought  that  Christ's  kingdom  would  have  been 
established  by  other  means  than  going  up  and  down  the 
world?  They  looked  that  Christ  himself  should  do  it  by  his 
own  power,  "Wilt  thou  at  this  time,"  &c.  and  did  not  think  it 
must  be  done  by  their  means;  much  less  by  their  singly  going 
into  such  vast  parts  of  the  world,  as  the  twelve  divisions  of 
the  world  would  be.  Secondly,  It  appears  very  improbable 
any  such  division  oi  provinces  should  be  made  then,  when 
they  were  commanded  to  stay  at  Jerusalem^  and  not  to  stir 
thence  till  the  promise  of  the  spirit  was  fulfilled  upon  them. 
"Tarry  ye  in  the  oXiy  oi  Jerusalem  till  ye  be  endued  with 
power  from  on  high,"  Luke  xxiv.  49.  "And  being  assem- 
bled together  with  them,  he  commanded  them  not  to  depart 
from  Jerusalem,  but  wait  for  the  promise  of  the  Father," 
tdcts  i.  4,  Is  it  likely,  when  the  apostles  were  thus  straightly 
charged  not  to  leave  Jerusalem,  till  they  were  endued  with 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  should  contrive  the  dis- 
persing themselves  abroad  all  over  the  world?  especially  when 
Christ  told  them  that  it  should  be  after  the  coming  of  the 
Spirit  that  they  should  go  abroad,  Jlcts  i.  8,  and  that  the 
Spirit  should  fit  them  for  their  work,  [John  xv.  26,  27;  John 
xvi.  13,)  "by  teaching  them,  and  testifying  of  Christ." 
Thirdly,  If  such  a  distribution  oi  provinces  had  been  made 
so  early  among  the  apostles,  how  comes  it  to  pass,  that  after 
they  were  endued  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  did  not  every 
one  betake  himself  to  his  sevexoX  province?  there  could  have 
been  then  no  plea  nor  excuse  made  for  their  stay  any  longer 
at  Jerusalem  after  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  was  fulfilled  upon 
them.  And  yet  after  the  persecution  raised  at  Jerusalem, 
when  most  of  the  church  were  dispersed  abroad,  we  find  the 
apostles  remaining  still  at  Jerusalem,  Acts  \\\\.  1,  14.  Would 
they  have  been  so  long  absent  from  their  charge,  if  any  such 
distribution  had  been  made  among  themselves?  Fourthly, 
The  apostles'  occasional  going  to  places  as  they  did,  argues 
there  was  such  set  division  oi  provinces  among  them.  The 
first  departure  of  any  of  the  apostles  from  Jerusalem  was 
that  of  Peter  and  John,  who  were  sent  by  common  order 
of  the  apostles  to  Samaria,  after  they  heard  that  by 
Philip's  preaching  they  had  received  the  word  of  God.' 
Not  the  least  mention  of  any  peculiar  province  of  theirs 
which  they  were  sent  to.     So  Peter^s  going  from  Joppa  to 

'  Acts  viii.  14. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  259 

Coesarea,  was  occasioned  by  Cornelius's  sending  for  him,^ 
Fifthly,  Tiiat  provinces  were  not  divided,  appears,  the  fre- 
quent mention  of  many  of  the  apostles  being  together  in  one 
place:  first  the  whole  twelve  at  Jerusalem,  after  that  Peter 
and  John  together  at  Samaria;  about  four  years  after  Paul's 
conversion  we  meet  with  James  and  Peter  together  at  Jeru- 
salem; fourteen  years  after  this,  we  find  James,  Peter  and 
John  there.2  Is  it  any  ways  probable,  if  all  these  had  Iheir 
O^xsXwxcX  provinces  assigned  them,  that  they  should  be  so  often 
found  together  at  Jerusalem,  which  certainly  must  belong 
but  to  the  province  of  one  of  them?  Sixthly,  It  seems  evi- 
dent that  they  divided  not  the  world  into  provinces  among 
them,  because  it  was  so  long  before  they  thought  it  to  be 
their  duty  to  preach  unto  the  Gentiles;  Peter  must  have 
a  vision  first  before  he  will  go  to  Cornelius,^  and  as  yet 
we  see  they  retained  that  persuasion,  "that  it  is  unlawful 
for  a  Jew  to  keep  company,  or  come  unto  one  that  is  of 
another  nation,"  Acts  x.  28.  Nay,  more  than  this,  Peter 
is  accused  for  this  very  action  before  the  apostles  at  Jeru- 
salem, tdcts  xi.  2,  3,  and  they  laid  this  as  the  ground  of 
their  quarrel,  that  he  went  unto  men  uncircumcised,  and  did 
eat  with  them;  how  this  is  reconcilable  with  the  whole 
world's  being  divided  into  provinces  so  early  among  the 
apostles,  is  not  easy  to  conceive:  unless  some  of  them  thought 
it  unlawful  to  go  to  their  own  provinces,  most  of  which  cer- 
tainly must  have  been  of  the  Gentiles.  Seventhly,  Another 
evidence  that  provinces  were  not  divided  so  soon,  is,  that 
Peter's  province  so  much  spoken  of,  "That  of  the  circtun- 
cision,"  fell  not  to  his  share,  till  nearly  twenty  years  after  the 
time  we  now  speak  of,  on  the  agreement  between  Paul  and 
Peter  at  Jerusalem.  If  provinces  had  been  so  soon  divided, 
how  happened  it  that  the  apostleship  of  the  circumcision  is  now 
at  last  attributed  to  Peter?'*  Was  it  not  known  what  Peter's 
province  was  before  this  time?  and  if  it  was,  how  came  Paul 
and  he  now  to  agree  about  dividing  their  provinces?  Nay 
further:  eighthly,  these  provinces  after  all  this  time  were  not 
so  divided,  as  to  exclude  one  froiri  another's  jf?roymce,  which 
was  requisite  for  a  distribution  of  them,  much  less  were  they 
so  at  first;  for  as  to  this  division  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles 
between  P«w/and  Peter,  \i  cannot  be  wnAevsioodi  exclusively 


J  Acts  X.  5,  32.  2  Gal.  i.  18,  19;  ii.  1,  9. 

3  Acts  X.  11. 

*  Gal.  ii.  7,  8,  9.     Answ.  to  Catbol.  Gentl.  chap.  4,  s.  3,  numb.  7. 


260  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

of  others;  for,  what  work  then  had  the  rest  of  the  apostles 
to  do?  Neither  taking  them  distributively,  was  Paul  ex- 
cluded from  ])reaching  to  the  Jews,  or  Peter  to  the  Gentiles. 
We  see  Pent  I  was  at  lirst  chosen  "to  be  a  vessel  to  bear 
Christ's  name  before  the  Gentiles  and  kings,  and  the  children 
of  Israel."^  We  see  hereby  he  was  appointed  an  apostle  as 
well  to  Jews  as  Gentiles:  and  accordingly  we  find  him  pre- 
sently "{)reaching  Christ  in  the  synagogues,  and  confounding 
the  Jews."^  So  in  all  places  where  Pcnii  came,  he  first 
preached  to  the  Jews  in  the  synagogues,  and  when  they 
would  not  hearken  to  him,  then  he  turned  to  the  Gentiles.^ 
Neither  was  this  done  only  before  the  apostles'  meeting  at 
Jerusalem,  supposed  to  be  that  spoken  of  ,/2cts  xv.  but  after- 
wards at  Ephesus,  we  find  him  entering  into  the  synagogues 
there,  and  preaching  to  the  Jews,'*  So  likewise  he  did  at 
Corinth,  ^cts  xviii,  4.  "And  he  reasoned  in  the  synagogue 
every  sabbath,  and  persuaded  the  Jews  and  the  Greeks/  We 
then  see  that  P«<// thought  not  himself  excluded  from  preach- 
ing to  the  Jews,  because  they  were  of  St.  Peter'' s  province. 
Neither  did  Peter  tliink  himself  excluded  from  the  Gentiles;  he 
was  the  first  that  opened  the  door  of  faith  to  them  by  preach- 
ing to  them;^  in  which  respect  it  is  not  altogether  improbably 
conceived  by  some,  that  the  power  of  the  keys  was  peculiarly 
given  to  him.^  And  afterwards  in  the  open  council  at  Jerusa- 
lem, he  owns  himself  as  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles:  "God 
made  choice  among  us,  that  the  Gentiles  by  my  mouth  should 
hear  the  word  of  the  gospel  and  believe."^  This  then  evidently 
destroys  any  such  early  distinction  of  provinces;  when  Peter''s 
province  seemed  most  express  in  scripture,  viz,  the  circum- 
cision, yet  we  find  him  acting  as  an  apostle  to  the  Gentiles 
too.  I  deny  not  but  at  the  meeting  of  Paul  and  Peter  at 
Jerusalem,  when  they  observed  how  God  did  bless  the  one 
most  in  the  circumcision,  the  other  in  the  uncircumcision, 
there  was  an  agreement  between  them,  for  the  one  to  lay  out 
his  work  chiefly  upon  the  Jews,  and  the  other  upon  the  Gen- 
tiles; and  in  probability  where  they  met  in  any  city,  the  one 
gathered  a  church  of  the  Jews,  and  the  other  of  the  Gentiles; 
but  this  makes  no  such  distinction  of  provinces,  as  to  exclude 
the  one  from  the  other's  charge:  and  further,  this  agreement 
between  Paul  and  Peter  then  after  both  had  preached  so 

1  Acts  ix.  15,  2  Acts  ix.  20,  22. 

3  Acts  xiii.  5,  14.  *  Act;*,  xix.  8, 

6  Acts  xviii,  19,  6  Acts  x.  28. 

^  Matth,  xvi,  19.  s  Acts  xv.  7. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  261 

many  years,  makes  it  fully  clear  that  the  pretended  division 
of  provinces  so  early  ainoiig  tlie  apostles,  is  only  the  wind- 
egg  of  a  working  fancy,  that  wants  a  shell  of  reason  to  cover 
it.  As  for  tlie  division  of  provinces  mentioned  in  ecclesiasti- 
cal writers,  though  as  to  some  few  they  generally  agree;  as 
that  Thomas  went  to  Pariliia,  Andrew  to  Scythia,  John  to 
the  less  Asia,  &.c.^  yet  as  to  the  most  they  are  at  a  loss 
where  to  find  their  provinces,  and  contradict  one  another  in 
reference  to  them;  and  many  of  them  seem  to  have  their  first 
original  from  the  fable  of  Dorotheus,  NicephorKS,  and  such 
writers. 

§  3.  Having  showed  that  the  apostles  observed  no  set  order 
for  distributing  provinces,  we  come  to  show  what  course 
they  took  for  the  settling  of  churches  in  the  places  they  went 
to.  In  the  clearing  of  wliich,  nolliing  is  more  necessary  than 
to  free  our  judgments  of  those  prejudices  and  prepossessions, 
which  the  practice  either  of  the  former  ages  of  the  church,  or 
om"  own  have  caused  within  us.  For  it  is  easy  to  observe, 
that  nothing  iiath  been  a  more  fruitful  mother  of  mistakes  and 
errors,  than  the  looking  upon  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
church  through  the  glass  of  our  own  customs;  especially 
when  under  the  same  name,  (as  it  is  very  often  seen,)  some- 
thing far  difterent  from  what  was  primarily  intended  by  the 
use  of  the  word,  is  set  forth  to  us.  It  were  no  difficult  task 
to  multiply  examples  in  this  kind,  wherein  men  meeting  with 
the  same  names,  do  apprehend  the  same  things  by  them, 
which  they  now  through  custom  signify,  without  taking 
notice  of  any  alteration  in  the  things  themselves  signified  by 
those  names.  Thus  since  the  name  missa  was  appropriated 
by  the  papists  to  that  which  they  call  the  sacrifice  of  the 
altar,  wherever  they  meet  among  ancient  writers  with  that 
name,  they  presently  conceive  the  same  thing  was  understood 
by  it  then.  Whereas  it  was  then  only  taken  for  the  public 
service  of  the  church,^  so  called  from  the  dismission  of  the 
people  after  it,  with  an  Ite,  missa  estf  and  from  the  diff'erent 
i'orms  of  Christians,  they  had  two  several  services,  the  one 
called  Missa  catechumeiioruni,  because  at  the  end  of  that 
the  catechumens  were  dismissed  from  the  assembly;  the  other 
Missa  fidelium,  at  which  they  received  the  Lord's  supper; 
which  afterwards,  (the  former  discipline  of  the  church  decay- 

1  Euseb.  lib.  3,  cap.  1. 

2  V.  Pichereilum  de  Missa,  cap.  1.  Casaub.  Exercit.  16,  sect.  58. 

3  Doubtless,  an  abbreviation  of,  Ite,  ecclesia,  missa  est;  "go,  the  congregatioa 
is  dismissed." 


262  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

ing,)  engrossed  the  name  Missa  to  itself;  and  when  the 
sacrifice  of  the  altar  came  up  among  the  papists,  it  was  ap- 
propriated to  that.  For  though  they  innov^ated  things  ever 
so  much,  yet  it  hath  been  always  the  policy  of  that  church 
not  to  innovate  names,  that  so  the  incautious  might  be  better 
deceived  with  a  pretence  of  antiquity;  and  llins  under  the 
anciently  simple  name  of  Missa,  lies  at  this  day  couched  a 
mass  of  errors.  So  after  the  word  %fvtovfynv  "to  perform  the 
functions  of  a  public  office,  to  minister,"  was  applied  by  them 
to  that  sacrifice,  wherever  they  meet  that  word  in  scripture, 
they  interpret  it  in  that  sense;  and  hence  when  we  only  read 
of  the  teachers  at  Jintioch,  xntov^yowtuiv  avt(^v,  "as  they  min- 
istered," no  other  rendering  of  tlie  words  will  be  taken  but 
sacrificantibus  illis,  "as  they  sacrificed,"^  ahhough  it  be  not 
only  contrary  to  the  sense  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament, 
but  to  the  exposition  of  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and  Oecu- 
menius,  who  expound  it  by  xrj^vttovtav,  "  they  invoking." 
Thus  when  pubhc  liturgies  were  grown  into  use  in  the  church 
after  the  decay  of  the  gifts  of  the  first  primitive  church,  Euse- 
bius  barely  calling  Si.  James  Ati^roveyo^,  "a  minister,"  (though 
he  relates  only  to  hiSTniiiistry  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem,)  is 
enough  to  entitle  him  to  be  father  to  a  liturgy,  which  soon 
crept  forth  under  his  name:  by  an  argument  much  of  the 
same  strength  with  that  which  some  have  brought  for  reading 
homilies,  because  it  is  said  of  St.  Paul,  Acts  xx.  11,  oftarjaas 
ax^Li  avyrji,  "  discourscd  uutil  day-break."  Of  the  same  stamp 
is  BeJlarmine's  argument  for  invocation  of  saints,  because  of 
Jacob'' s  saying,  Invocetur  super  eos  nomen  tneum,  "  tlie  Vul- 
gate's version  for  Gen.  xlviii.  16,  let  my  name  be  named  on 
them."  But  we  need  not  go  far  for  examples  of  this  kind. 
The  business  we  are  upon,  will  acquaint  us  with  some  of 
them.  As  the  argument  for  popular  election  of  pastors,  from 
the  grammatical  sense  of  the  word  xi<'?o-iovi.a,  "  voting  by  a 
show  of  hands,"  for  lay  elders  from  the  name  Ti^iciivttpot., 
"•'elders,  recently  presbyters,"  and  modern  episcopacy  from 
the  use  of  the  word  frtt^xorfoj,  "an  overseer,"  in  the  scriptures, 
but  in  modern  times  a  bishop.  Names  and  things  must  then 
be  accurately  distinguished,  and  the  sense  of  the  names  must 
neither  be  fetched  from  the  custom  now  used,  nor  from  the 
etymology  of  the  word,  but  from  the  undoubted  practice  of 
apostolical  times,  if  that  can  be  made  appear  what  it  was. 
Which  will  be  best  done,  if  we  can  once  find  out  what  course 

•  Acts  xiii.  2. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  263 

and  order  the  apostles  took  in  the  forntiing  and  modeling  the 
churches  by  them  planted. 

§4.  That  which  we  lay  then  as  a  foundation,  whereby  to  clear 
what  apostolical  practice  was,  is,  that  the  apostles  in  forming 
churches  did  observe  the  customs  of  the  Jewish  synagogues. 
*' The  whole  government  of  the  churches  of  Christ  was  con- 
formed to  the  pattern  of  the  synagogues,"^  saith  Gj^otins 
truly.  "  It  is  evident  that  the  governors  and  overseers  of  the 
churcheswere  constituted,  according  to  the  likeness  of  the  elders 
of  the  Jewish  synagogues,"^  as  Salmashis  often  affirms.  In 
which  sense  we  understand  that  famous  speech  of  the  author 
of  the  commentary  on  St.  FauPs  epistles,  which  goes  under 
the  name  o{  jlmbrose,^  but  now  judged  by  most  to  be  done  by 
Hilary,  a  deacon  of  the  church  of  Rome,  under  which  name 
St.  v'iugustine  quotes  some  words  on  the  fifth  to  the  Romans, 
which  are  found  still  in  those  commentaries.  "For  certainly, 
amongst  all  nations  age  is  accounted  honourable.  Hence, 
both  the  synagogue  and  afterwards  the  church  had  elders, 
without  whose  advice,  nothing  in  the  church  was  done,"'* 
which  words  are  not  to  be  understood  of  a  distinct  sort  of 
presbyters  from  such  as  were  employed  in  preaching  the 
word,  but  of  such  presbyters  as  were  the  common  council  of 
the  church,  for  the  moderating  and  ruling  the  affairs  of  it; 
which  the  church  of  Christ  had  constituted  among  them,  as 
the  Jewish  synagogue  had  before.  And  from  hence  we  ob- 
serve that  the  Ebionites,  who  blended  Judaism  and  Christi- 
anity together,  (whence  Jerome  saith  of  them,  "  whilst  they 
desire  to  be  both  Jews  and  Christians,  they  are  neither  Jews 
nor  Christians,"^)  made  a  linsey-iuoolsey  religion,  which 
was  neither  Judaism,  nor  Christianity .^  These,  as  Epipha- 
nius  tells  us,  called  their  public  meeting  place  awayuyriv,  ''the 
synagogue,"  and  the  pastors  of  their  churches  A^x<-'^vvayayovi;, 
"  rulers  of  the  synagogue."  Thereby  implying  the  resem- 
blance and  analogy  between  the  form  of  government  in  both 


'  Totum  regimen  ecclesiarnm  Christ!  conforniafum  fuit  ad  synagogarum  ex- 
emplar. — V.  Btzam.  in  Acts  xiii.  15:  in  Acts  xi.  30;  vi.  3;  xiv.  12;  xx.  28. 

2  Prsesides  et  curatorcs  ecclesiarurn  ad  instar  presbyterorum  synagfogfse  judaicas 
conslitutos  fuisse  constat. — Appjirat.  ad  lib.  de  Prim.  Papae,  p.  151,  220. 

3  In  1  Tim.  V.  1,  V.  etiam  in  1  Cor.  xii.  28. 

■1  Nam  apud  omnes  utique  getites  Tionorabilis  est  sencctiis,  unde  et  synago^a 
et  pnstca  ccclesia  seniores  liabuif,  sine  quorum  consilioniliil  ag-ebalur  in  ecclesia.. 
— Aug.  lib.  4,  ad  Bonif.  cap.  4. 

5  Duin  volcnt  et  Judai  esse  et  Christiani,  ncc  Judcei  sunt  nee  Christiani. — Ep. 
ad.  Aug. 

6  0.  Ebion. 


264  THE  DIVINE   RIGHT  OP 

of  them.  But  this  will  best  be  made  appear  by  comparing 
them  both  together.  For  which  we  are  to  take  notice,  how 
much  otir  Saviour  in  the  New  Testament  did  dehght  to  take 
up  tlie  received  practices  among  the  Jews  only,  with  such 
alterations  of  them  as  were  suitable  to  the  nature  and  doc- 
trine of  Christianity,  as  hath  been  abundantly  manifested  by 
many  learned  men,  about  the  rites  of  the  Lord's  supper,  taken 
from  the  fiost  cxnam,  "after  the  supper,"  among  the  Jews;^ 
the  use  of  baptism,  from  the  baptism  used  in  initiating  pro- 
selites;  exconmiunication  from  their  putting  out  of  the  syna- 
gogue. As  to  which  things  it  may  be  observed,  that  those 
rites  which  our  Saviour  transplanted  into  the  gospel  soil, 
were  not  such  as  were  originally  founded  on  Moseses  law, 
but  were  introduced  by  a  confederate  discipline  among  them- 
selves. And  thus  it  was  in  reference  to  the  government  of 
the  synagogues  among  them;  for  although  the  reason  of  erect- 
ing them  was  grounded  on  a  command  in  the  Levitical  law, 
Levit.  xxiii.  3,  where  holy  convocations  are  required  upon 
the  sabbath  days;  yet  the  building  of  synagogues  in  the  land, 
was  not,  as  far  as  we  can  find,  till  a  great  while  after.  For 
although  Moses  required  the  duty  of  assembling,  yet  he  pre- 
scribes no  orders  for  the  place  of  meeting,  nor  for  the  manner 
of  spending  those  days  in  God's  service,  nor  for  the  persons 
who  were  to  superintend  the  public  worship  performed  at 
that  time.  These  being  duties  of  a  moral  nature,  are  left 
more  undetermined  by  Moses's  law,  which  is  most  punctual 
in  the  ceremonial  part  of  divine  service.  And  therefore  even 
then  when  God  did  determine  the  positives  of  worship,  we  see 
how  much  he  left  the  performance  of  morals  to  the  wisdom 
and  discretion  of  God's  people,  to  order  them  in  a  way  agree- 
able to  the  mind  and  will  of  God.  We  shall  not  here  discourse 
of  the  more  elder  customs  and  observations  of  the  synagogues, 
but  take  the  draught  of  them  by  the  best  light  we  can  about 
our  Saviour's  time,  when  the  apostles  copied  out  the  govern- 
ment of  Christian  churches  by  them. 

About  the  time  of  Christ,  we  find  synagogues  in  very  great 
request  among  the  Jews;  God  so  disposing  it,  that  the  moral 
part  of  his  service  should  be  more  frequented  now  the  cere- 
monial was  expiring;  and  by  those  places  so  erected,  it  might 
be  more  facile  and  easy  for  the  apostles  to  disperse  the  gospel 
by  preaching  it  in  those  places,  to  which  it  was  the  custom  for 

'  V.  Scaliger.  de  Emend,  temp.  1.  6,  et  Lud.  Capelli  vind.  c.  Buxtorsii  diss. 
Selden  Com.  in  Eulychium,  p.  25. 


FORMS  OP  CHUKCH  GOVERNMENT.  265 

the  people  to  resort.  And  as  Paul  at  Athens  observing  the 
altar  inscribed  Ayj/ws-co  ^sw,  "To  the  unknown  God,"  takes  his 
text  from  thence,  and  begins  to  preach  God  and  Christ  to 
thetn;^  so  the  apostles  in  every  synagogue  meet  with  a  copy 
of  the  law,  from  whence  they  might  better  take  their  rise  to 
discover  him  "  who  was  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness 
to  all  that  believe."  ''For  Moses  of  old  time  hath  in  every 
city  I  hem  that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the  synagogues  every 
sal)l)ath  day."^  It  was  their  constant  custom  then  every 
sabbath  day  to  have  the  law  publicly  read;  for  which  every 
synagogue  was  furnished  with  a  most  exact  copy;  which  was 
looked  upon  as  the  great  treasure  and  glory  of  their  syna- 
gogue;^  in  the  copying  out  of  which,  the  greatest  care  and 
diligence  was  used.  In  their  synagogues  they  read  only  the 
law  and  the  prophets,  the  D'umj,  "emphatically  the  writings," 
or  Hugiogrupha,  "the  holy  writings,"'*  were  not  ordinarily 
read  in  public;  the  law,  for  the  more  convenient  reading 
it,  was  distributed  into  fifty-four  nr'iyii),  "sections,"  every 
week  one  section  being  read,  (joining  twice  two  less  sections 
together,)  the  whole  law  was  read  through  twice  every  year. 
But  here  I  cannot  say  that  the  Jews  were  absolutely  bound 
to  read  the  several  sections  appointed  for  the  days,  as  it  is 
commonly  thought  (from  which  jjciraschx,  "sections,"  and 
the  times  prefixed  of  reading  them,  Cloppenburgh^  fetched  a 
new  interpretation  of  the  -Za^Satov  Sivteport^utov,^  which  is,  that 
the  first  sabbath  was  that  of  the  civil  year  which  began  with 
the  section  n't^xin^  upon  the  twenty-fourth  of  the  month  Tisri; 
but  the  second  sabbath  after  the  first,  was  the  first  sabbath 
of  the  sacred  year,  which  began  with  Lynnn,  from  a'ln,  "  keep 
silence,"  the  section  on  the  calends  o{  Nisan,)  but  I  do  not  see 
any  such  evidence  of  so  exact  and  curious  a  division  of  the 
several  sections,  so  long  since  as  the  time  of  our  Saviour,* 
which  appears  by  our  Saviour's  reading  in  the  synagogue  at 
Nazareth,  where  it  seems  he  read  after  the  synagogue  cus- 
tom, as  one  of  the  seven  called  out  by  the  jrn,  "seer,"  to  read 
before  the  people,  but  we  find  no  section  assigned  him  by 

1  Acts  xvii.  23.  2  Acts  XV.  21. 

3  V.  Baxtorf.  Synag.  Jud.  c.  9,  p.  216. 

4  V.  Lud.  de  Dicu  in  Acts  xiii.  15. 

5  V.  Cloppenb.  tract,  de  Sabb.  deuleroproto  and   Lud.  Capelli  ep.  ad  CIopp.  p. 
74,  cum  resp.  Clopp.  p.  143. 

6  The  Sabbath  vvbicli  follows  a  great  festival. 

7  Berashceth,  the  first  word  of  tl:ie  Hebrew  Bible,  (in  the  beginning,)  and  the 
first  word  of  the  section. 

8  Luke  iv.  17. 

34 


266  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

him  that  deUvered  the  book  to  him  (the  office  of  the  po,  "pre- 
sident,") but  it  is  said  of  him   amrt7ij|a$  to  j5i.6Uov  cv^s  top  toftov, 

"  when  he  had  unfolded  the  book  he  found  out  that  place"  in 
Isaiah.  So  that  then  it  seems  there  was  no  such  precise  ob- 
servation of  the  several  sections  to  be  read.  And  our  Saviour's 
reading  the  book  of  the  prophets  in  the  synagogue,  puts  us  in 
mind  of  the  nnuan,  "the  sections  of  the  prophets,"  answerable 
to  those  of  the  law;  which  Elias  Levita^  tells  us  came  up 
after  the  time  oi  Antiochiis  Epiphanes,  who  so  severely  pro- 
hibited the  Jews  the  reading  of  their  law,  but  from  that  time 
hath  been  observed  ever  since:  of  which  we  read  in  Paul's 
sermon  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia  speaking  of  Christ:  "  For  they 
that  dwell  at  Jerusalem,  and  their  rulers,  because  they  knew 
him  not,  nor  the  voices  of  the  prophets  which  are  read  every 
sabbath  day."^  Benjamin  Tudelensis^  in  his  Itinerary,  tells 
us,  that  the  same  custom  was  not  observed  among  all  the 
Jews  for  the  reading  the  sections  of  the  law.  For  in  Mits- 
raim*  (which  lie  there  takes  not  for  Egypt  itself,  as  it  is 
commonly  taken,  but  for  Grand  Cairo),  where  there  were 
near  two  thousand  Jews,  there  were  iwo  synagogxies,\\\c  one 
of  Syria)!,  the  other  of  Babylonian  Jews.  The  latter  read 
over  every  week  an  entire  section  of  the  law,  (as  the  Jews  in 
Spain  in  his  time  did,)  and  so  finished  the  law  in  a  year's 
space.  The  Syrian  Jews,  or  those  that  were  born  in  Jiidea, 
divided  every  section  into  three  parts,  and  read  not  the  law 
through,  but  in  three  years'  time.  These  synagogues  were 
very  much  multiplied,  both  in  Jerusalem  and  elsewhere,  about 
the  time  of  our  Saviour's  being  in  the  world.  When  the  com- 
mon tradition  of  the  Jews  is,  that  in  Terz^^a/em^  itself,  there 
were  four  hundred  and  eighty-one  synagogues,  which  they 
ridiculously  observe  by  their  Gematry^  from  the  word  "HnSd, 
"  it  was  full,"  used  Isa.  i.  21,  whose  numeral  letters  being 
put  together,  amount  to  that  number;  but  a  clearer  evidence  of 
the  multitude  o{  synagogues''  is  our  Saviour's  so  often  appear- 
ing in  them;  and  so  likewise  the  apostles^  when  they  went 
abroad  to  preach  the  gospel,  we  find  in  most  places  that  they 
first  entered  into  the  synagogues  which  were,  by  the  liberty 
given  to  the  Jews,  allowed  them  in  all  the  cities  where  they 

1  lu.Tliisbi  V.  rito^ 

2  Acts  xiii.  27.  3  Itiner.  p.  114,  ed.  L'Emper. 
4  V.  L'Emper.  in  Not.  p.  220.  5  V.Scrrarium. 

SRulib  prior,  cap.  32. 

^  MiiUh.  iv.  9;  Mark  i.  23:  Luke  iv.  17.  John  vi.  59,  xviii.  20. 

8  Acts  xiii.  14,  xiv.  1,  xvii.  10, xviii.  4,  xix.  8. 


POKMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  267 

inhabited,  by  (he  Roman  governors.  And  so  in  all  their  dis- 
persions botli  in  Babylon,  Egypf,  a.nd  the  Western  parts,  we 
read  of  the  synagognes  which  the  Jews  enjoyed,  and  the 
liberty  they  had  tiierein  for  exercise  of  their  own  way  of  wor- 
ship and  disciphne.  And  therefore  even  at  Borne,  we  read 
of  their  proseuchse, 

Edc  ubi  consistus,  in  qua  te  quseru  prose ucha?' 

Which  by  the  old  scholiast  upon  Juvenal  is  said  to  be  the 
place  ad  quein  convenire  solebant  niendici  ad  slipeni  peten- 
dam,  '•  to  which  the  mendicants  were  accustomed  to  resort  to 
ask  alms,"  of  which  Turnebtis  gives  this  account:  "Proseuchse 
were  Jewish  temples,  as  at  Rome,  Alexandria,  and  elsewhere. 
They  obtained  the  name,  either  because  they  were  places 
where  certain  divine  answers  were  given,  or  as  the  Christians 
express  it,  they  were  places  for  prayer.  Bnt  since  the  Jews 
were  very  })rone  to  give  alms,  hither  a  crowd  of  mendicants 
resorted.  But  as  both  the  Jews  and  the  beggars  themselves 
were  hated  by  all,  and  the  latter  sometimes  occupied  those 
places  as  gneists,  because  they  had  no  abodes,  and  lodged  in 
the  same,  theret'bre  those  places  sank  into  the  name  of  pro- 
seuchae,  begging  places,  by  way  of  contempt. "^  Scaliger^ 
thinks  that  the  proseuchse  diflered  from  the  synagogue;  for 
which  he  is  checked  by  Grotius  from  that  place  of  Philo, 
where  he  speaks  of  Jiugustiis  giving  the  Jews  the  liberty  of 
\\\Q\x  proseucha  for  the  learning  the  religion  of  their  country, 
which  in  brief  is  that  the  "  Proseuchaj,  in  the  different  cities, 
were  the  schools  of  all  religion,  learning,  wisdom,  fortitude, 
justice,  piety,  prudence,  and  of  every  virtue,'"  by  which 
words  he  seems  to  confound  not  only  the  syiiagogite  and  the 
proseuchse  together,  bnt  the  synagogue  and  the  \i>y^n  n'3, 
"temple  for  expounding  and  divinity  school  too,"  whither 
they  used  to  repair  after  dinner  on  sabbath  days,  and  where 
the  questions  about  their  law  were  discussed;  but  though  I 

'  Tell  me  where  thou  dwellest,  in  what  proseucha  may  I  seek  thee? — Juve- 
nal, s;it.  3. 

"  ProseuchcE  fana  JudEBorum  erant,  ut  Alexandrige  et  Romse,  alibique;  sic  nomcn 
adeptce  quod  oracula  qusedam  esseni,  vel  (ut  Cliiistiani  loquuntur)  orutoria.  Cum 
auletn  ad  elcemosynam  Judaei  dundam  esscnt  propt'iisissitni,  co  ecu  mendicoruin 
convcntus  coibat;  sed  ct  Judaei  et  ipsi  mendici,  invisi  erant  omnibus,  et  mendici 
ea  loca  quod  domicilia  mm  haberant,  divcrsores  inlerdum  oceupabant,  in  iisque 
cubabant,  ideoque  proseuchae  nomen  in  eontemptum  abierat. — Advers.  I.  1, 
cap.  v.). 

3  Not.  in  Frag.  Graeca,  p.  25,  in  Matt.  iv.  23.  Leg.  ad  Caium. 

*  Ta  yctj  xttTtt  TToXii;  tDrjo^Etixrufia  ti  tricot  £{-iv  n  JiJarxttXlttt  i^^mrtffiax;  xcti  avJ^eiac  xai 


26S  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

cannot  say  these  were  always  distinguished,  yet  in  some  places 
they  were.  Such  seems  the  school  of  Tyranmis  to  be,  where 
P«u/'  taught,  having  withdrawn  iiimselffrom  tiie  synagogue. 
And  so  sometimes  {he  proseuchse  were  distinguished  from  the 
synagogues,  as  Grotius'^  himself  elsewhere  acUnowledgeih, 
viz.  either  where  there  was  not  a  competent  number  of  Jews,- 
(for  ten  students  in  the  law  were  required  to  make  a  syna- 
gogue,) or  else  where  the  magistrate  would  not  permit  the  use 
of  them,  in  which  case  the  poor  Jews  were  fain  to  content 
themselves  with  a  place  remote  from  the  city,  either  by  some 
river,  as  that  Tt^oofa);^;!;,  mentioned  Ads  xv'\.  13,  or  by  some 
grove  or  wood,  whence  \hdiioi  Juvenal, 

Nunc  sucri  fonlis  nemus,  et  (iclubru  locantur 
Judaeis,  quorum  cophinus  fcenuinque  suppellex.^ 

Which  fountain,  as  Vossius*  observes,  was  extra  portam 
Capenam  in  liico  quern  medium  irrigabat,  "  was  without  the 
gate  Capena,  in  the  grove  whose  midst  it  waters;"  and  from 
hence  Scaliger^  gathers,  Judseos  in  nemoribus  proseuchas 
collocdsse,  "the  Jews  placed  their  proseuchae  in  groves."  Thus 
it  appears  now  what  privileges  the  Jews  generally  enjoyed  in 
their  dispersion  for  their  synagogues  and  public  places  to  meet, 
pray,  and  discourse  in. 

§  6.  We  now  come  to  inquire  after  what  manner  the  go- 
vernment of  the  synagogue  was  modelled.  Wherein  we  must 
first  inquire  whether  there  was  any  peculiar  government  be- 
longing to  the  synagogue  distinct  from  the  civil  consistories 
which  were  in  use  among  them.  This  is  often  left  untouched 
by  learned  men  in  their  discourse  of  synagogues:  some^  indeed 
make  the  least  consistory  or  sanhedrim  in  use  among  the 
Jews,  viz.  the  triumvirate,  to  be  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue, 
and  part  of  the  ten  who  were  to  be  wherever  there  was  a 
synagogue.  But  although  I  cannot  see  sufficient  evidence  for 
a  great  ecclesiastical  sanhedrim  foimded  by  Moses,  answering 
to  the  great  sanhedrim  of  seventy,  yet  I  conceive  it  probable, 
that  when  synagogues  were  so  multiplied  both  at  home  and 
abroad,  there  was  a  distinct  bench  of  officers  who  did  particu- 
larly belong  to  the  synagogue  to  superintend  the  atfairs  of 
that,  which  I  shall  now  endeavour  to  make  out  by  these  fol- 

'  Acts  xix.  9.  2  Annot.  in  Acts  xvi.  13. 

3  iN'ovv  the  grove  of  the  consecrated  fountain  and  temples,  (proseuchse,)  are 
placed  amnnfrst  the  Jews,  whose  furniture  is  panniers  and  hay. 
*  Dc  Idol.  I.  2,  cap.  80,  p.  715.  5  !„  Fragm.  Gr.  p.  25. 

6  D.  Lightfbot  Horae  Hebr,  in   Mat.  ii.  23,  p.  70. 


\ 

FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  269 

lowing  reasons:  First,  Because  the  ten  required  for  the 
synagogue  are  set  down  by  the  Jewish  writers  as  distinct  Irom 
the  uuinber  required  for  the  civil  consistory.  For  in  the  Ge- 
inura  Babylonia  (cited  by  Seldoi^)  the  account  given  wliy 
there  must  be  one  hundred  and  twenty  iniiabitants  where 
there  was  to  be  a  sanhedrim  of  twenty-three,  is  this:  There 
7niist  be  tioenty-three  to  make  up  the  sanhedrim,  and  three 
orders  of  twenty-three,  (who  sat  in  a  hemicycle  under  the 
saniiedrim  in  the  same  form  as  they  sat,)  and  besides  these  the 
ten  ivho  ive.re  to  be  employed  ivholly  in  the  affairs  of  the 
synagogue,  (for  the  Gloss  there  explains  them  to  be  nzu^o  b^o 
\'TD2  D'Mi  'n  nTi£];,  dece?7iflii  homi)iis  vacantes  ab  omni opere, 
utparati  sint,  "  ten  sons,  men  at  leisure,  from  every  kind  of 
work,  that  tiiey  might  be  ready,"  nniDH  r^i"!  iTd-\;;i  r\'^n^  do?7iui 
synagogse  mane  et  vesperi,  "  at  the  house  of  the  synagogue, 
morning  and  evening,"  and  there  adds,  that  every  city,  though 
it  be  walled,  where  ten  such  persons  are  wanting,  is  looked  on 
only  as  a  village, and  thought  unworthy  to  have  a  sanhedrim 
of  twenty-three;)  so  that  by  this  it  appears  the  number  of  the 
decemvirate  for  the  synagogue,  was  distinct  from  the  jiersons 
employed  in  the  civil  courts.  To  the  same  purpose  Maimo- 
nides^  gives  the  account  of  the  nimiber  of  one  hundred  and 
twenty,  who  likewise  requires  the  ten  for  the  synagogue  as  a 
distinct  and  peculiar  number.  "  And  these  were  men  who 
were  at  leisure  for  sacred  things,  that  is,  for  the  reading  of  the 
law,  and  for  the  sessions  of  the  synagogue,"^  as  Mr.  Selden* 
quotes  it  from  another  place  in  him.  Whereby  it  is  evident 
that  those  who  were  employed  in  tlie  synagogue,  did  make  a 
peculiar  bench  and  consistory,  distinct  from  the  civil  judica- 
ture of  the  place.  And  therefore  the  A^;i;(,5ti'aycoyot,  "chiefs 
of  the  synagogue,"  are  not  the  civil  rulers,  but  some  peculiar 
officers  belonging  to  the  service  of  the  synagogue:  and  thence 
wiien  all  civil  power  and  government  was  taken  from  the 
Jews,  yet  they  retained  their  archisynagogues  still.  Whence 
we  read  of  archisynagogues,  patriarchs  and  presbyters 
among  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Jircadius  and  Honorius,^ 
when  all  civil  power  and  jurisdiction  was  taken  from  them. 
The  second  reason  is  from  the  peculiar  ordination  of  those  who 
were  the  rulers  of  the  synagogues.  This  I  know  is  denied  by 
many:  because,  say  they,  ordination  was  proper  only  to  the 

I  De  Syned.  1.  2,  c.  5,  s.  4.  2  In  .Tud.  tit.Sanhed.  c.  1,  sect.  6. 

3  Alqtic  lii  cranl  viri  qui  vacabant  tanlum  rebus  divinis,  nirniruiii  lectioni  Icgis 
et  sossioni  in  syiiagogis. 

4  AA  Misn,  lit.  Sdiihed.  c.  1,  sect.  6.         »  Cod.  Theod.  1.  16,  tit.  8, 1.  13  and  14. 


I 


270  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

presbyters  among  the  Jews,  who  were  thereby  made  capable 
of  being  members  of  the  sanhedrim,  thence  it  was  called 
D"Jp?  HD'OD,  ordinatio  preshyterorum,  "ordination  of  pres- 
byters," i.e.  impositio  mamium  qud  presbyteri  fiimt,  "  the 
imposition  of  hands,  by  which  presbyters  are  made."  This 
ordination  was,  I  grant,  primarily  used  in  order  to  the  making 
men  members  of  the  great  sanhedrim,  and  therefore  the  Jews 
derive  the  custom  of  ordaining  them,  from  Moses  first  con- 
stituting the  seventy  elders,  wiiich,  say  they,  was  done  by 
imposition  of  hands:  which  was  seconded  by  the  example  of 
Moses^  laying  his  liands  on  Joshua,  from  whence  the  custom 
was  continued  down  among  them  till  the  time  of  Adrian, 
who  severely  prohibited  it  by  an  edict,  that  whosoever  should 
ordain  another  should  forfeit  his  life,^  and  so  every  one  that 
was  so  ordained.  Thence  the  Jews  tell  us  that  R.  Jehiida 
Ben  Baba  is  called  ^Dion,  <'  the  ordainer,"  because  in  the  time 
of  that  edict  he  ordained  five  presbyters,  without  which  they 
had  wholly  lost  their  succession  of  presbyters  for  courts  of  ju- 
dicature. But  though  it  be  thus  evident  that  their  ordination 
was  chietly  used  in  order  to  the  fitting  men  to  be  members  of 
the  sanhedrim,  yet  that  besides  this  there  was  a  peculiar  or- 
dination for  persons  not  employed  in  civil  matters,  will  appear; 
First,  From  the  different  forms  of  their  ordination;  some 
were  general  without  any  restriction  or  limitation  at  all:  which 
power  was  conferred  in  words  to  this  purpose:  "Be  thou  now 
ordained,  and  have  authority  of  judging  also  in  criminal 
causes."^  He  that  was  thus  ordained,  was  fit  for  any  court 
of  judicature;^  but  there  was  another  form  of  ordination  which 
was  more  particular  and  restrained;  a  form  limiting  the  gene- 
ral power,  either  to  pecuniary  cases,  or  criminal,  or  only  to 
the  power  of  binding  and  loosing,  without  any  judiciary 
power  at  all.  Now  those  that  were  thus  ordained,  were  the 
Jewish  casuists,  resolving  men  only  in  fore  conscientise,  "in 
the  court  of  conscience,"  of  the  lawfulness  and  unlawfulness 
of  things  propounded  to  them.  This  they  called  "inm  no'ND 
nn-in'?  nw^  Facultas  decernendi  circa  ligatum  et  solutuni^ 
that  is,  "a  power  of  decreeing  wliat  was  lawful  or  unlawful." 
P^or  in  that  sense  binding  and  loosing  is  used  by  the  Jewish 
writers.     In  which  sense   they  tell    us   commonly  that  one 

'  Numb,  xiii.,  xxxvii.  18. 

2  Gum.   Biibyl.  ad  tit.  Sanhed.  c.  1,  s.  13,  14.    Scaliger  Elcricli.  Triber.  c.  10. 
Tzemach.  David,  p.  1,  md.  4,  An.  S8U. 

3  Ordinntus  jam  sis,  et  sit  tibi  ficultjs  jiidicandi  eliam  causas  poenales. 
♦  Selden  ad  Eutych.  p.  li),  de  Syned.  1.  2,  c.  7,  s.  2. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  271 

school,  as  that  of  Hillel^  -inix,  "  binds,"  that  is,  jndgeth  a  thing 
unlawful;  another  inio,  "  looselh,"  (as  that  of  Schammai,) 
th;U  is,  judgeth  it  lawful  and  free  to  be  done.  Now  the  per- 
sons thus  ordained  with  this  power  only,  were  thereby  no 
member  of  any  civil  court  of  judicature,  nor  thereby  made 
capable  of  it:  it  appears  then  that  this  ordination  was  peculiar 
to  a  particular  function,  which  exactly  answers  to  the  minis- 
terial office  under  the  gospel.  And  that  those  who  were  thus 
ordained,  either  might  not,  or  did  not  exercise  that  office  of 
theirs  in  the  synagogue,  1  can  see  no  reason;  I  am  sure  it  was 
most  suitable  to  that  place,  or  at  least  to  the  jynD  n'a,  "di- 
vinity school,"  where  there  was  such  a  one  distinct  from  the 
synagogue. 

But  a  clearer  evidence  of  the  particular  ordination  of  those 
employed  in  the  synagogue,  we  have  from  Benjamin  in  his 
Itinerary;  for  granting  his  palpable  mistakes  about  the  civil 
powers  of  the  Jews  in  his  time,  (which  was  about  the  middle 
of  the  twelfth  century,)  sufficiently  discovered  by  the  learned 
L' Empereur^  yet  as  to  the  ordaining  of  persons  for  the  seve- 
ral synagogues,  we  have  no  ground  to  suspect  his  testimony, 
wliich  is  very  plain  and  evident.  For  speaking  of  U.  Daniel 
Ben  Hasdai,  who  was  the  n^un  jj'ni  or  the  'ai;,-juaxcoT'a'p;i;»;j, 
"Me  head  of  the  Captivity^'  then  residing  at  Bagdad,  he 
tells  us,  the  synagogues  of  Babylon,  Persia,  Choresan,  Sheba, 
Mesopotamia,  and  many  other  places,^  derived  power  from 
him  jiru  ni  ^npi  '~>T\ri  id  h'^'j^'of  ordaining  a  Rabbi  and  preacher 
over  every  synagogue,"  which  he  tells  us  was  done  by  laying 
on  his  hands  upon  them.  These  two,  the  Rabbi  and  the  jin, 
seer,  he  makes  to  be  the  fixed  officers  of  every  synagogue, 
and  the  office  of  the  latter  lay  chiefly  in  expounding  the  scrip- 
tures. The  like  he  hath  of  R.  Nathaniel,  the  nn'ij'in  lyx-i,  "the 
resident  chief,"  in  Egypt,  to  whose  office  it  belonged  to  ordain 
in  all  the  synagogues  in  Egypt,  j'jpini  o'jm,  the  Rabbis  and 
lecturers  of  the  synagogue:  by  which  we  see  clearly,  that 
there  was  a  peculiar  ordination  for  the  ministers  belonging  to 
the  synagogue.^  Thence  Scaliger  wonders  how  Christ  at 
twelve  years  old  should  be  permitted  to  sit  among  the  doctors, 
asking  questions  when  he  was  not  an  ordained  Rabbi,  to 
whom  that  place  belonged.*  But  although  «.  jusou  t^v  biSaaxd7Mv 
may  possibly  mean  no  more  than  in  the  midst  of  the  teachers, 

"  V.  Liglitfoot  Horse  Hebr.  in  Matth.  xvi.  19. 

2  Dissertal.  ad  I.ectorem  and  in  not.  193,  &.c. 

3  P.  73,  ed.  L'E.nper.  Heb.  Lat. 

*  Elench.  Triiierc.  10.  6  Luke  ii.  46. 


272  THE  DIVINE   RIGHT  OP 

or  sitting  Oil  one  of  the  lower  seats  belonging  to  those  who  were 
yet  in  their  mJDp  or  "minority,"  where  they  sat  at  the  feet  of 
their  teachers,  which  was  not  within  the  temple  itself,  but,  as 
Arias  Montanus^  thinks,  was  at  the  east,  gate  of  the  temple 
where  the  doctors  sat;  yet  this  is  evident  by  Scaliger,  that  he 
looked  oil  an  ordination  for  that  end,  as  necessary'  to  those 
who  sat  in  the  synagogues,  as  the  doctors  there:  which  is  like- 
wise affirmed  by  Grot'nis,  who  tells  us,  that  among  the  Jews, 
not  only  all  public  civil  offices  were  conferred  by  imposition 
of  hands:^  "But  likewise  all  the  rulers  and  elders  of  the  syna- 
gogue were  so  ordained,  from  whence  the  custom  was  trans- 
lated into  Christianity,"  (of  which  afterwards.)  Thus  now  we 
have  cleared  that  there  was  a  peculiar  government  belonging 
to  the  synagogue,  distinct  from  the  civil  judicatures. 

Having  thus  far  proceeded  in  clearing  that  there  was  a  pe- 
culiar form  of  government  in  the  synagogue,  we  now  inquire 
what  that  was,  and  by  what  law  and  rule  it  was  observed. 
The  government  of  the  synagogue,  cither  relates  to  the  public 
service  of  God  in  it,  or  the  public  rule  of  it  as  a  society.  As 
for  the  service  of  God  to  be  performed  in  it,  as  there  were 
many  parts  of  it,  so  there  were  many  officers  peculiarly  ap- 
pointed for  it.  The  main  part  of  public  service  lay  in  the 
reading  and  expounding  the  scriptm-es:  for  both,  the  known 
place  of  Philo  will  give  us  light  for  understanding  them. 
"Coming  to  their  holy  places  called  synagogues,  they  sit  down 
in  convenient  order  according  to  their  several  forms,  ready  to 
hear,  the  young  under  the  elder;  then  one  taketh  the  book 
and  readeth,  another  of  those  best  skilled  comes  after  and  ex- 
pounds it."^  For  so  Grotius  reads  it,  di/aSiSacrxft,  "  he  in- 
structs," for  dvayi.j'wffxft,  "  he  reads,"  out  of  Eusebius.'^  We 
see  two  several  offices  here,  the  one  of  the  reader  in  the  syna- 
gogue, the  other  of  him  that  did  interpret  what  was  read. 
Great  dilferencc  I  find  among  learned  men  about  the  irn  of 
the  synagogue:  some  by  him  understand  the  dyayi'caf;;?,  "a 
reader,"  called  sometimes  in  scripture  vTiri^itri';,  a  "servant  or 
attendant,"  and  so  make  him  the  under  reader  in  the  syna- 


'  In  Appar.  de  Tcrnplo. 

2  Sed  ft  in  Archisyn;i£rogis  et  scnioribus  synaijna-ae,  idem  observatum,  unde 
mos  p^Ej^-cflea-iac  ad  Cliristianos  transit. — Annnt.  in  Evang-.  p.  3'^. 

*  Elf  lEjouj  a<j)ixvtf/UEVoi  TOTTOuf  01  naXovVTai  O'Viayajyai  xaQ  JiXixwf  ev  ra^eTiy  airo 
"aTifOEs-CuTEijOf;  VE0(  xaflE^ovTai  lUETtt  xojjUou  TrjojJjxovTCf,  ep^ovTEj  axpottTixa;f  £i9,  q  fx(v  tch 
0iQho\i;  oMayaoiTHH  "KaZonv,  ETEoof  S's  twv  Ef^TTEifCTaTaJV,  oaa  |t*£V  yvx^ifxa^  Tra^tMwD 
avayivMj-xei. — Lib.  ornncrn  probuin  liberutn  esse. 

*  In  Luc.  iv.  16. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  273 

gogue;^  and  hence  I  suppose  it  is,  (and  not  from  looking  to  the 
poor,  which  was  the  office  of  the  Parnasim,)  that  the  office  of 
deacons  in  the  primitive  church  is  supposed  to  be  answerable 
to  the  D'Jin,  "seers,  overseers,"  among  the  Jews;  for  the  dea- 
con's office  in  the  church  was  the  pubUc  reading  of  the  scrip- 
tures: and  hence  Epiphaniits^  parallels  the  a^;K'owaycoyot)j, 
7ie,iaSvti^ovi,  and  a^avitai,^  among  the  Jews,  to  the  bishop, 
presbyters  and  deacons,  among  the  Christians.  But  others 
make  the  office  of  the  j?n  to  be  of  a  higher  nature  not  to  be 
taken  for  the  reader  himself,  (for  that  was  no  office,  but  upon 
every  sabbath  day  seven  were  called  out  to  do  that  work,  as 
Buxiorf  ietis  us,-*  first  a  priest,  then  a  Levite,  and  after,  any 
five  of  the  people;  and  these  had  every  one  their  set  parts  in 
every  section  to  read;  which  are  still  marked  by  the  numbers 
in  some  Bibles.)  But  the  pn,  chezen,  was  he  that  did  caU  out 
every  one  of  these  in  their  order  to  read,  and  did  observe  their 
reading,  whether  they  did  it  exactly  or  not.  So  JBuxtorf, 
speaking  of  the  jrn,  "  He  especially  took  the  lead  in  the 
prayers  and  singing  of  the  church;  he  presided  over  the  read- 
ing of  the  law,  teaching  what,  and  in  what  manner  it  ought 
to  be  read;  and  over  similar  matters  pertaining  to  sacred  cere- 
monies.'"^ So  that  according  to  him,  the  jin,  chezen,  or  seer, 
was  the  superintendant  of  all  the  public  service;  thence  others 
make  him  parallel  to  him  they  called  ^)D)-^  n^'?iy,  "the  angel  of 
the  church,  Legatus  Ecclesiae."  L' Emjjereiir^  renders  it,  as 
though  the  name  were  imposed  on  him  as  acting  in  the  name 
of  the  church,  which  could  only  be  in  offering  up  public 
prayers;  but  he  was  Jingelus  Dei,  as  he  was  insjiector  eccle- 
siae, because  the  angels  are  supposed  to  be  more  immediately 
present  in,  and  supervisors  over  the  public  place,  and  duties 
of  worship;  see  1  Cor.  xi.  10.  This  jin  is  by  U Empereur 
often  rendered  Concionator  synagogse,  "the  expounder,"  as 
though  it  belonged  to  him  to  explain  the  meaning  of  what 
was  read  in  the  synagogue;  but  he  that  did  that  was  called 
wr\  from  iy"n  "to  inquire;"  thence  avlTi-f^irii  tov  xoeiiov  tovtov, 
"the  inquirer,  or  disputer  of  this  world,"^  thence  B.  Moses 
Haddarsan:  but  it  is  in  vain  to  seek  for  several  offices  from 


>  Luke  iv.  20.  2  c.  Ebeonites. 

3  Not  Greek,  but  from  the  Hebrew  D^^TD,  explained  before. 
<Synag.  Jud.  lib.  II, 

5  Hie  maxime  oratione  sive  precibus  et  cantu  Ecclesiae  praeibat,  praeerat  lectioni 
legali,  docens  quod  et  quomodo  legendum,  et  sitnilibus  quae  ad  sacra  pertinebant. 
— Lex.  Rabb.  ad  verb. 

6  In  Benjam.  not.  p.  149.  ">  Cor.  i.  28. 

35 


274  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

several  names;  nay,  it  seems  not  evident,  that  there  were  any 
set  officers  in  the  Jewish  church  for  expounding  scriptures  in 
all  synagogues,  or  at  least  not  so  fixed,  but  that  any  one  that 
enjoyed  any  repute  for  religion  or  knowledge  in  the  law,  was 
allowed  a  free  liberty  of  speaking  for  the  instruction  of  the 
people,  as  we  see  in  Christ  and  his  apostles;'  for  the  rulers  of 
the  synagogue  sent  to  Paul  and  Barnabas  after  the  reading 
of  the  law,  that  if  they  had  any  word  of  exhortation,  they 
should  speak  on. 

From  hence  it  is  evident,  there  were  more  than  one  who 
had  rule  over  the  synagogues,  they  being  called  rulers  here. 
It  seems  very  probable,  that  in  every  city  where  there  were 
ten  ivise  men,  (as  there  were  supposed  to  be  in  every  place, 
where  there  was  a  synagogue,)  that  they  did  all  jointly  concur 
for  the  ruling  the  affairs  of  the  synagogue.  But  what  the 
distinct  offices  of  all  these  were,  it  is  hard  to  make  out,  but  all 
joining  together  seem  to  make  the  consistory,  or  bench  as 
some  call  it,  which  did  unanimously  moderate  the  affairs  of 
the  synagogue,  whose  matmer  of  sitting  in  the  synagogues,  is 
thus  described  by  Mr.  Thorndike  out  of  Maimonides^  whose 
words  are  these:  "  How  sit  the  people  in  the  synagogue?  The 
elders  sit  with  their  faces  towards  the  people,  and  their  backs 
towards  the  hecall,  (the  place  v/here  they  lay  the  copy  of  the 
law,)  and  all  the  people  sit  rank  before  rank,  the  face  of  every 
rank  towards  the  back  of  the  rank  before  it,  so  the  faces  of 
all  the  people  are  towards  the  sanctuary,  and  towards  the 
elders,  and  towards  the  ark;  and  when  the  minister  of  the 
synagogue  standeth  up  to  prayer,  he  standeth  on  the  ground 
before  the  ark  with  his  face  to  the  sanctuary,  as  the  rest  of  the 
people."  Several  things  are  observable  to  our  purpose  in  this 
testimony  of  Maimonides:  First,  that  there  were  so  many 
elders  in  the  synagogue,  as  to  make  a  bench  or  consistory, 
and  therefore  had  a  place  by  themselves,  as  the  governors  of 
the  synagogue.  And  the  truth  is,  after  their  dispersion  we 
shall  find  little  government  among  them,  but  what  was  in  their 
synagogues,  unless  it  was  where  they  had  liberty  for  erecting 
schools  of  learning.  Besides  this  college  of  presbyters,  we  here 
see  the  public  minister  of  the  synagogue,  the  riDjnn  ;in,  i.  e. 
episcopus  co7igregationis,  "the  superintendent  over  the  con- 
gregation," whose  peculiar  office  it  was  to  pray  for,  and  to 
bless  the  people.  We  are  here  further  to  take  notice  of  the 
form  of  their  sitting  in  the  synagogues;  the  presbyters  sat 

'  Act.  xiii.  15.  2  Service  of  God  at  Rel.  Ass.  c.  3,  p.  56. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  aoVERNMENT.  275 

together  upon  a  bench  by  themselves,  with  their  faces  towards 
the  people,  which  was  in  an  heniicycle,  the  form  wherein  aJl 
the  courts  of  judicature  among  them  sat;  which  is  fully  de- 
scribed by  Mr.  Selden,^  and  Mr.  Thorndike^  in  the  places 
above  cited.  This  was  afterwards  the  form  wherein  the  bishops 
and  presbyters  used  to  sit  in  the  primitive  church,  as  die  last 
named  learned  author  largely  observes  and  proves.  Besides 
this  college  of  presbyters,  there  seems  to  be  one  particularly 
called  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  Snpn  tyxi,  "  raish  haquahal, 
the  ruler  of  the  synagogue,"  in  the  New  Testament,^  a^x^av- 
foywyoj,  or  a^x<^v  tru  (jwoyayijj,  whlch  is  of  the  Same  import,  and 
following  the  idiom  of  the  Alexandrine  Jews  in  the  version  of 
the  Old  Testament,  implies  no  more  than  a  primacy  of  order 
in  him  above  the  rest  he  was  joined  with.  And  thence  some- 
times we  read  of  them  in  the  plural  number,  Iv  a^;tct5vraywyoi, 
Acts  xiii.  15,  implying  thereby  an  equality  of  power  in  many; 
but  by  reason  of  the  necessary  primacy  of  one  in  order  above 
the  rest,  the  name  may  be  appropriated  to  the  president  of  the 
college.  Jicts  xviii.  8,  17,  we  read  of  two,  viz.  Cf^ispus  and 
Sostfienes,  and  either  of  them  is  called  Ap;t'ffi'»'ay»yosi  which 
could  not  be,  did  the  name  import  any  peculiar  power  of  juris- 
diction lodged  in  one  exclusive  of  the  rest,  unless  we  make 
them  to  be  of  two  synagogues,  for  which  we  have  no  evidence 
at  all;  I  confess,  Bezd's*  argument  from  ni  tav  a^;t'ffway«yu.i', 
"  one  of  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,"  Mark  v.  22,  for  one  of 
a  multitude  of  those  so  called  in  the  same  synagogue,  is  of  no 
great  force,  where  we  may  probably  suppose  there  were  many 
synagogues.  But  where  there  is  no  evidence  of  more  than 
one  in  a  place,  and  we  find  the  name  attributed  to  more  than 
one,  we  have  ground  to  think  that  there  is  nothing  of  power 
or  jurisdiction  in  that  one,  which  is  not  common  to  more  be- 
sides himself.  But  granting  some  peculiarity  of  honour  belong- 
ing to  one  above  the  rest  in  a  synagogue,  which  in  some 
places,  I  see  no  great  reason  to  deny,  yet  that  implies  not  any 
power  over  and  above  the  bench  of  which  he  was  a  member, 
though  the  first  in  order;  much  as  the  X'lyj,  the  ^^ prince  of 
the  sanhedrim,^^  whose  place  imported  no  power  peculiar  to 
himself,  but  only  a  priority  of  dignity  in  himself  above  his 
fellow  senators:  as  the  princeps  senatus,  or  "prince  of  the 
senate,"  in  the  Roman  republic  answering  to  the  |"n  n'^  ox, 
the  "father  of  the  house  of  judgment,"  in  the  great  sanhedrim, 

>  Dc  Syned.  1.  2,  c.  6,  s.  2.  2  Tliorndike,  Rel.  Assem.  cap.  3. 

3  Mark  v.  35;  Luke  viii.  49,  xiii.  14.         ''  Annot.  in  Luc.  1.3,  14. 


276  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

who  was  next  to  the  Nasi,  as  the  princeps  senatus  to  the  con- 
suls,  which  was  only  an  honorary  dignity  and  nothing  else: 
under  which  disguise  that  politic  prince  Augustus  ravished 
the  Roman  commonwealth  of  its  former  liberty.  The  name 
a^xi'Ovva^ayoi  may,  I  suppose  in  propriety  of  speech,  be  ren- 
dered in  Latin  by  magister  ordinis,  "  master  of  the  order," 
he  being  by  his  office  prsesul^  "chief,"  a  name  not  originally 
importing  any  power,  but  only  dignity:  those  whom  the 
Greeks  call  ap;i;it^jaj,  the  Latins  render  magistros  sui  ordinis, 
"chiefs  of  their  own  order;"  and  so  Suetonius  interprets 
O'fxt'i^osvv'^v  by  magisterium  sacerdotii,  "the  chieftainship  of 
the  priesthood,  the  pontificate."  They  who  meet  then  with 
the  name  archisynagogues,  either  in  Lampridius,  Vopiscus, 
Codex  Theodosii,  Justinian^ s  Novels^  in  all  whom  it  occurs, 
and  in  some  places  as  distinct  from  presbyters,  will  learn  to 
understand  thereby  only  the  highest  honour  in  the  synagogue; 
considering  how  little,  yea  nothing  of  power  the  Jews  enjoyed 
under  either  the  heathen,  or  Christian  emperors. 

One  thing  more  we  add,  touching  this  honour  of  the  rulers 
of  the  synagogue  among  the  Jews,  that  whatever  honour, 
title,  power  or  dignity  is  imported  by  that  name,  it  came  not 
from  any  law  enforcing  or  commanding  it,  but  from  mutual 
confederation  and  agreement  among  the  persons  employed  in 
the  synagogue,  whose  natural  reason  did  dictate,  that  where 
many  have  an  equality  of  power,  it  is  most  convenient,  (by 
way  of  accumulation  upon  that  person,  of  a  power  more  than 
he  had,  but  not  by  deprivation  of  themselves  of  that  inherent 
power  which  they  enjoyed,)  to  entrust  the  management  of 
the  executive  part  of  atfairs  of  common  concern  to  one  per- 
son specially  chosen  and  deputed  thereunto.  So  it  was  in  all 
the  sanhedrims  among  the  Jews,  and  in  all  well  ordered 
senates  and  councils  in  the  world.  And  it  would  be  very 
strange,  that  any  officers  of  a  religious  society,  should  upon 
that  account  be  outlawed  of  those  natural  liberties,  which  are 
the  results  and  products  of  the  free  acts  of  reason.  Which 
things,  as  I  have  already  observed,  God  hath  looked  on  to  be 
so  natural  to  man,  as  when  he  was  most  strict  and  punctual 
in  ceremonial  commands,  he  yet  left  these  things  wholly  at 
liberty.  For  we  read  not  of  any  command,  that  in  the  san- 
hedrim one  should  have  some  peculiarity  of  honour  above 


•  In  Caligula,.  Lampr.  vit.  Alex.  Sever.  Vopiscus  in  Saturn.   Cod.  de  Jud.  Colic, 
et  Earn.  1.  13.     Cod.  Jud,  1.  17,  c.  de  .ludseis. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  277 

the  rest;  this  men's  natural  reason  would  prompt  them  to,  by 
reason  of  a  necessary  priority  of  order  in  some  above  others; 
which  the  very  instinct  of  nature  hath  tauglit  irrational  crea- 
tures, much  more  should  the  light  of  reason  direct  men  to  it. 
But  yet  all  order  is  not  power,  nor  all  power  juridical,  nor  all 
juridical  power  a  sole  power;  therefore  it  is  a  mere  paralogism^ 
in  any  from  order  to  infer  power,  or  from  a  delegated  power 
by  consent,  to  infer  a  juridical  power  by  divine  right;  or  lastly, 
from  a  power  in  common  with  others,  to  deduce  a  power 
excluding  others.  All  which  they  are  guilty  of,  who  merely 
from  the  name  of  an  arcliisynagogue,  would  fetch  a  per- 
petual necessity  of  jurisdiction  in  one  above  the  elders  joined 
with  him,  or  from  the  niej-'JH,  "the  prince"  in  the  sanhedrim, 
a  power  of  a  sole  ordination  in  one  without  the  consent  of 
his  fellow  senators.  But  of  these  afterwards.  Thus  much 
may  suffice  for  a  draught  in  miniature  of  the  government  of 
tlie  Jewish  synagogue. 

§  8.  Having  thus  far  represented  the  Jewish  synagogue, 
that  the  idea  of  its  government  may  be  formed  in  our  under- 
standings, we  now  come  to  consider  how  far,  and  in  what  the 
apostles  in  forming  Christian  churches  did  follow  the  pattern 
of  the  Jewish  synagogue.  Which  is  a  notion  not  yet  so  far 
improved  as  I  conceive  it  may  be,  and  I  know  no  one  more 
conducive  to  the  happy  end  of  composing  our  differences, 
touching  the  government  of  the  church  than  this.  I  shall 
therefore  for  the  full  clearing  of  it,  premise  some  general  con- 
siderations to  make  way  for  the  entertainment  of  this  hypo- 
ihesis,  at  least  as  probable;  and  then  endeavour  particularly 
to  show  how  the  apostles  did  observe  the  model  of  the  syna- 
gogue; in  its  public  service,  in  ordination  of  church  officers, 
in  forming  presbyteries  in  the  several  churches,  and  in 
ruling  and  governing  those  presbyteries.  The  general  con- 
sideration I  premise,  to  show  the  probability  of  what  I  am 
asserting,  shall  be  from  these  things:  from  the  community  of 
name  and  customs  between  the  believing  Jeivs  and  others, 
at  the  first  forming  of  churches:  from  the  apostle^ s  for ming 
them  out  of  synagogues  in  their  travelling  abroad;  from 
the  ag)^eeableness  of  that  model  of  government  to  the  state 
of  the  Christian  churches  at  that  time.  I  begin  with  the 
first,  From  the  community  of  names  and  customs  between 
the  believing  and  unbelieving  Jews  at  the  first  forming 
churches.     All  the  while  our  blessed  Saviour  was  living  in 

'  False  arg'umcnt;  from  Traja,  against,  and  \r>ya%^  reason. 


•278  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

the  world,  Christ  and  his  disciples  went  still  under  the  name 
of  Jews;  they  neither  renounced  the  name,  nor  the  customs 
in  use  among  them;  our  Saviour  goes  up  to  the  feasts  at 
Jerusalem,  conforms  to  all  the  rites  and  customs  in  use  then; 
not  only  those  commanded  by  God  himself,  but  those  taken 
up  by  the  Jews  themselves,  if  not  contrary  to  God's  com- 
mands, as  in  observing  the  feast  of  dedication,  in  going  into 
their  synagogues,  and  teaching  so  often  there,  in  washing  the 
feet  of  the  disciples,  (a  custom  used  by  them  before  the  pass- 
over,)  in  using  baptism  for  the  proselyting  men  to  the  pro- 
fession of  Christianity,  &c.  In  these  and  other  things  our 
Saviour  conformed  to  the  received  practice  among  them, 
though  the  things  themselves  were  no  ways  commanded  by 
the  law  of  Moses.  And  after  his  resurrection,  when  he  took 
care  for  the  forming  of  a  church  upon  the  doctrine  he  had 
delivered,  yet  we  find  not  the  apostles  withdrawing  from 
communion  with  the  Jews,  but  on  the  contrary,  we  find  the 
disciples  frequenting  the  temple,  ^cts  ii.  46;  iii.  1;  v.  20,  21, 
26.  Whereby  it  appears  how  they  owned  themselves  as 
Jews  still,  observing  the  same  both  time  and  place  for  public 
worship  which  were  in  use  among  the  Jews.  We  find  Paul 
presently  after  his  conversion  in  the  synagogues,  preaching 
that  Christ  whom  he  had  before  persecuted;^  and  wherever 
he  goes  abroad  afterwards,  still  entering  into  the  synagogues 
to  preach;  where  we  cannot  conceive  he  would  have  had  so 
free  and  easy  admission,  unless  the  Jews  did  look  upon  him 
as  one  of  their  own  religion,  and  observing  the  same  customs 
in  the  synagogues  with  themselves,  only  differing  in  the  point 
of  the  coming  of  the  Messias,  and  the  obligation  of  the  cere- 
monial law,2  the  least  footsteps  of  which  were  seen  in  the 
synagogue  worship.  But  that  which  yet  further  clears  this, 
is  the  general  prejudice  of  the  disciples  against  the  Gentiles, 
even  after  the  giving  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  appears  by  their 
contending  with  Peter  for  going  to  men  uncircumcised.^  It  is 
evident  then,  that  the  apostles  themselves  did  not  clearly  appre- 
hend the  extent  of  their  commission:  for  else  what  made  Peter 
so  shy  of  going  to  Cornelius?  But  by  every  creature,  and  all 
nations,  they  only  apprehended  the  Jews  in  their  dispersions 
abroad,'*  or  at  least,  that  all  others  who  were  to  be  saved, 
must  by  being  proselyted  to  the  Jews,  and  observing  the  law 


1  Acts  ix.  20. 

2  Acts  xiii.  5,  14;  xvii.  IQ;  xviii.  4;  xix.  8. 

»  Acts  xi.  3.  "  Acts  X.  28. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  279 

of  Moses,  together  with  the  gospel  of  Christ.  And  therefore 
we  see  the  necessity  of  circumcision  much  pressed  by  the 
beUeving  Jews,  wliich  came  down  from  Jerusalem,  that  raised 
so  high  a  dispute,  that  a  convention  of  the  apostles  together 
at  Jerusalem  was  called  for  the  ending  of  it;  and  even  there 
we  find  great  heats  before  the  business  could  be  decided,' 
HoVKrii  8i  (sv^vttjaiioi  ytvoixivrii,  "after  there  had  been  much  dis- 
puting." Nay  after  this  council,  and  the  determination  of  the 
apostles  therein,  all  the  ease  and  release  that  was  granted, 
was  only  to  the  Gentile  converts,  but  the  Jews  still  adhered 
close  to  their  old  principles,  and  were  as  zealous  of  the  cus- 
toms of  the  Jews  as  ever  before.  For  which  we  have  a 
pregnant  testimony  in  ^cts  xxi.  20,  21,  22;  where  the 
elders  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  tell  Paul  there  were  many 
myriads  lovhaiav  -tuv  rtcHi^ivxotav,  "of  believing  Jews,"  who 
were  navtsi  Cv^u-tai,  tov  vofiov,  "all  very  zealous  for  the  law," 
and  therefore  had  conceived  a  sinister  opinion  of  Paul,  as 
one  that  taught  a  defection  from  the  law  of  Moses,  saying, 
"they  might  not  circumcise  their  children,  nor  walk  after  the 
customs."  One  copy  reads  it  as  Beza  tells  us,  t'oij  tOEat,  t-oIV 
rtat^uovs  7io^tvsa9ai,  "to  follow  the  customs  of  their  fathers." 
We  see  how  equally  zealous  they  are  for  the  customs  obtain- 
ing among  them,  as  for  the  law  itself.  And  is  it  then  any 
ways  probable  that  these  who  continued  such  zealots  for  the 
customs  among  them,  should  not  observe  those  customs  in 
use  in  the  synagogues  for  the  government  of  the  church.? 
Might  not  they  have  been  charged  as  well  as  Paul  with 
relinquishing  the  customs,  if  they  had  thrown  off  the  model 
of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  and  taken  up  some  customs  different 
from  that?  And  that  which  further  confirms  this,  is,  that  this 
church  of  Jerusalem  continued  still  in  its  zeal  for  the  law,  till 
after  the  destruction  of  the  temple;  and  all  the  several  pastors 
of  that  church,  (whom  ecclesiastical  writers  call  bishops,) 
were  of  the  circumcision.  For  we  have  the  testimony  of 
Sulpitius  Severus,  speaking  of  the  time  of  Jidrian.  "And 
because  the  Christians  were  generally  supposed  to  be  of  the 
Jews,  for  at  that  time  the  church,  except  it  had  a  minister  of 
the  circumcision,  was  not  at  Jerusalem,  he  ordered  his  troops 
to  keep  them  constantly  under  military  custody,  and  to  drive 
all  Jews  from  every  approach  to  that  city.  But  this  was  not 
a  little  serviceable  to  the  Christian  faith,  since  th^n  nearly  all, 
under  the  observances  of  the  law,  believed  that  Christ  was 

•  Acts  XV.  1,  7. 


280  THE  DIVINE   RIGHT  OF 

God."^  We  see  hereby  that  the  Christians  observed  still  the 
law  with  the  gospel;  and  that  the  Jews  and  Christians  were 
both  reckoned  as  one  body,  which  must  imply  an  observation 
of  the  same  rites  and  customs  among  them.  For  those  are 
the  things  whereby  societies  are  distinguished  most.  Now  it 
is  evident,  that  the  Romans  made  no  distinction  at  first 
between  the  Jews  and  Christians.  Thence  we  read  in  the 
time  of  Claudius,  when  the  edict  came  out  against  the  Jews, 
Jiquila  and  Priscilla,  though  converted  to  Christianity,  were 
forced  to  leave  Italy  upon  that  account,^  being  still  looked  on 
as  Jews;  yet  these  are  called  by  Paul,  "his  helpers  in  Christ 
Jesus."^  For  which  Onephrius  gives  this  reason,  "For  as  yet, 
no  difference  was  known  between  Jews  and  Christians;"'* 
which  account  is  likewise  given  by  Mphonsus  Ciaconius, 
''For  Christians  as  well  as  Jews  were  thought,  by  the  Gen- 
tiles, to  be  of  the  same  kindred  and  religion."^  The  edict  of 
Claudius  we  may  read  still  in  Suetonius,  "He  expelled  the 
Jews  from  Rome,  continually  producing  some  disorder, 
Christ,  (as  they  thought,)  being  the  instigator!'""  We  find 
here  the  edict  fully  expressed  for  banishing  the  Jews,  and  the 
occasion  set  down;  which  most  interpret  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  a«  the  occasion  of  the  stirs  between  the  Jews  and 
Christians.  For  the  Romans  called  Christ  Chrestus,^  and 
Christians,  Chresiiani,  as  the  authors  of  the  Christians' 
apologies  against  the  heathens  often  tell  us.^  But  Marcellus 
Donatus  conjectures  this  Chrestus  to  have  been  some  sedi- 
tious Jew  called  by  that  name;  for  which  he  brings  many 
inscriptions  wherein  the  name  occurs,  but  none  wherein  it  is 
given  to  a  Jew;  which  should  be  first  produced,  before  we 

'  Et  quia  Christian!  ex  Judceis  potissimum  putabantur,  (namque  turn  Hiero- 
solymaB,  non  nisi  ex  circunicisione  habebat  ccclesia  sacerdotem)  militum  co- 
liortem  custodias  in  peipetuum  agitare  jussit,  quae  Judceos  omnes  Hierosolj'moe 
aditu  arccret.  Q,uod  quidcrn  Cliristianae  fidei  proficiebat;  quia  turn  pcne  omnes 
Cliristum  Deum,  sub  legis  observatione,  credebant.  Euseb.  hist.  I.  4,  c.  6,  et 
Chronic.  Hist.  sacr.  1.  2,  p.  381,  ed.  Horn. 

2  Acts  xviii.  2.  ^  Rom.  xvi.  3. 

4  Nullum  adhue  inter  JudfEos  et  Christianos  discrimen  noscebatur. — Annot.  in 
vit.  Petri,  ap.  Platin.  in  vit.  Petri. 

5  Congeneres  et  comprofessores  ejusdem  rcligionis  gentilibus  censebantur 
(Christian!  pariter  ac  Judsei.) 

6  Judaeos  impulsore  Christo  assidu6  tumultuantes  Roma  expulit. — In  Claud, 
cap.  2,5. 

7  "The  most  usual  sense  of  ;^5»io-T0f,  is  good,  excellent;  but  Xjifo?,  Christ,  i.  e. 
the  anointed,  is  from  x.s^'"  to  anoint.  Pronounce  the  English  e  in  Chrestus  long, 
as  Chrecstus." 

8  Lactant.  1.4,  c.  7.  Tertul.  Apolog.  cap.  3,  V,  Pet.  Pithaeum  Hor.  subseciv. 
1.  2,  c.  3.    Ponatus  Dilucid.  in  Sueton.  in  Claud,  c.  25. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  281 

leave  the  received  interpretation  of  it.  However  that  be,  we 
see  the  Jews  and  Christians  equally  undergo  the  punishment 
without  any  difference  observed  in  them;  and  therefore  when 
Paul  was  brought  before  Gallio  the  proconsul  of  Achaia,  he 
looked  upon  the  difierence  between  the  Jews  and  Paul  to  be 
only  "a  question  of  words  and  names,  and  of  their  law," 
and  thereupon  refused  to  meddle  with  it.^  And  so  Celsus 
upbraids  both  Jews  and  Christians,  as  though  their  conten- 
tions were  about  a  matter  of  nothing.  By  all  this  we  may 
now  consider,  how  little  the  Christians  did  vary  from  the 
customs  and  practice  of  the  Jews,  when  they  were  thought 
by  those  who  were  equally  enemies  to  both  to  be  of  the  same 
body  and  community.  Which  consideration  will  make  the 
thing  I  aim  at  seem  more  probable,  when  withal  we  observe 
that  the  Jewish  customs  in  their  synagogues,  were  those 
whereby  they  were  most  known  among  the  Romans;  and 
therefore  when  they  looked  on  the  Christians  as  of  the  same 
religion  with  the  Jews,  it  is  evident  they  observed  no  differ- 
ence as  to  their  public  practices  in  their  religious  societies. 
Which  is  the  first  consideration,  to  show  how  probable  it  is 
that  Christians  observed  the  same  form  in  government  with 
what  they  found  in  the  synagogues. 

§  9.  To  which  1  add  a  second  consideration;  which  is  the 
apostles  forming  Christian  churches  out  of  Jewish  synagogues. 
We  have  already  showed  how  much  their  resort  was  to  them 
in  their  preaching  from  the  constant  practice  of  Paul,  although 
he  was  in  a  more  peculiar  manner  the  apostle  of  the  uncir- 
cumcision;  much  more  then  is  it  probable  that  the  others, 
especially  Peter,  James,  and  John  did  resort  to  the  circum- 
cision. And  in  the  settling  things  at  first,  we  see  how  fearful 
the  apostles  were  of  giving  offence  to  the  Jews,  how  ready  to 
condescend  to  them  in  anything  they  lawfully  might.  And 
can  we  think  that  Paul  would  yield  so  far  to  the  Jews  as  to 
circumcise  Timothy^  rather  than  give  offence  to  the  Jews  in 
those  parts  where  he  was,  (and  that  in  a  thing  which  seemed 
most  immediately  to  thwart  the  design  of  the  gospel ;3  as  cir- 
cumcision did,  witness  the  apostle  himself;)  that  yet  he  would 
scruple  the  retaining  the  old  model  of  the  synagogue,  when 
there  was  nothing  in  it  at  all  repugnant  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
gospel,  or  the  nature  and  constitution  of  Christian  churches? 
When  the  apostles,  then,  did  not  only  gather  churches  out  of 

'  Acts,  xviii.  15.    Apud.  Orig.  lib.  3,  cont.  Cels. 
2  Acts  xvi.  3.  3  Gal.  v.  2. 

36 


282  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

synagogues,  but  at  some  places  in  probability  whole  syna- 
gogues were  converted  as  well  as  whole  churches  formed; 
what  show  of  reason  can  be  given  why  the  apostles  should 
slight  the  constitution  of  the  Jewish  synagogues,  which  iiad 
no  dependence  on  the  Jewish  hierarchy,  and  subsisted  not  by 
any  command  of  the  ceremonial  law?  The  work  of  the  syna- 
gogue not  belonging  to  the  priest  as  sucii,  but  as  persons 
qualified  for  instructing  others,  and  the  first  model  of  the 
synagogue  government  is  with  a  great  deal  of  probability  de- 
rived from  the  schools  of  the  prophets  and  the  government 
thereof.  This  consideration  wotild  be  further  improved,  if 
the  notion  of  distinct  ccbIus  "assemblies"  of  the  Jewish  and 
Gentile  Christians  in  the  same  places  could  be  made  out  by 
any  irrefragable  testimony  of  antiquity,  or  clear  evidence  of 
reason  drawn  from  scripture;  because  the  same  reason  which 
would  ground  the  distinction  of  the  Jewish  church  from  the 
Gentile,  would  likewise  iiold  for  the  Jewish  church  to  retain 
her  old  form  of  govenmient  in  the  synagogue  way.  For  it 
must  be  some  kind  of  peculiarity  supposed  by  the  Jews  in 
themselves  as  distinct  from  the  Gentiles,  which  did  make  them 
form  a  distinct  congregation  from  them;  which  peculiarity  did 
imply  the  observing  those  customs  among  them  still,  by  wliich 
that  peculiarity  was  known  to  others;  among  which  those  of 
the  synagogue  were  not  the  least  known  or  taken  notice  of. 
But  I  must  freely  confess,  I  find  not  anything  brought  by  that 
learned  person,  who  hath  managed  this  hypothesis^  with  the 
greatest  dexterity,  to  have  that  evidence  in  it  which  will  com- 
mand assent  from  an  unprejudiced  mind.  And  it  is  pity  that 
such  an  infirm  hypothesis  should  be  made  use  of  for  the 
justifying  our  separation  from  Rome,  which  was  built  upon 
reasons  of  greater  strength  and  evidence,  than  those  which 
have  been  of  late  pleaded  by  some  assertors  of  the  protestant 
cause,  though  men  of  excellent  abilities  and  learning.  For 
there  are  many  reasons  convincing  enough,  that  Peter  had 
no  universal  power  over  the  church,  supposing  that  there 
was  no  such  thing  as  a  distinction  between  the  Jewish  and 
Gentile  coitus,  "assemblies."  I  deny  not  but  at  first,  before 
the  Jews  were  fully  satisfied  of  the  Gentiles'  right  to  gospel 
privileges,  they  were  very  shy  of  communicating  with  them, 
especially  the  believing  Jews  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem: 
upon  the  occasion  of  some  of  whom  coming  down  to  Antioch 
from  James,  it  was,  that  Peter  luithdrew  and  separated  him- 

'  Dr.  Ham,  of  Scliisni,  ch.  4,  sect.  6,  7,  &c. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  283 

self  from  the  Gentiles,^  with  whom  beibre  he  famiUarly  con- 
versed. Which  action  of  his  is  so  id\-  from  being  an  argument^ 
of  the  settling  any  distinct  churcli  of  the  Jews  from  the  Gen- 
tiles there,  that  it  yields  many  reasons  against  it.  For  frst, 
Peter^s  withdrawing  was  only  occasional,  and  not  out  of 
design;  whereas,  had  it  been  part  of  his  commission  to  do  it, 
we  cannot  conceive  Peter  so  mindless  of  his  office,  as  to  let 
it  alone  till  some  Jews  came  down  from  Jerusalem  to  tell  him 
of  il.  Secondly,  It  was  not  for  the  sake  of  the  Jews  at  An- 
tioch  that  he  withdrew,  but  for  the  Jews  wiiich  came  down 
from  Jerusalem;  whereas,  had  he  intended  a  distinct  church 
of  the  Jews,  he  would  before  have  settled  and  fixed  them  as 
members  of  another  body;  but  now  it  evidently  appears,  that 
not  only  Peter  himself,  but  the  Jews  with  him,  did  before 
those  Jews  coming  to  Antioch  associate  with  the  Gentiles, 
which  is  evident  by  verse  13,  "And  other  Jews  dissembled 
likewise  with  him,  insomuch  that  Barnabas  also  was  carried 
away  with  their  dissimulation."  Whereby  it  is  clear,  that 
these  Jews  did  before  join  with  the  Gentile  Christians,  or  else 
they  could  not  be  said  to  be  led  away  with  tne  dissimulation 
of  Peter.  Thirdly,  St.  Paul  is  so  far  from  looking  upon 
this  withdrawing  of  Peter,  and  the  Jews  from  the  Gentiles' 
society  to  be  a  part  of  St.  Peter's  office,  that  he  openly  and 
sharply  reproves  him  for  it.  What  then,  was  Patil  so  igno- 
rant, that  there  must  be  two  distinct  churches  of  Jews  and 
Gentiles  there,  that  he  calls  this  action  of  his  dissimulation? 
In  all  reason  then,  supposing  this  notion  to  be  true,  the  blame 
lights  on  Paul,  and  not  on  Peter:  as  not  understanding,  that 
the  Jews  were  to  be  formed  into  distinct  bodies  from  the 
Gentile  Christians.  And  therefore  it  is  observable  that  the 
same  author  who  is  produced,  as  asserting,  that  "  They  were 
accounted  to  be  of  the  church,  who  were  separately  of  the 
Jews,  nor  were  intermixed  with  those  who  were  of  the  Gen- 
tiles,"^ is  he,  who  makes  this  reproof  of  Peter  by  Paul,  to  be 
a  mere  matter  of  dissimulation  between  them  both;  to  which 
sense  of  that  action  whoever  will  be  so  favourable  as  to  em- 
brace it,  (as  some  seem  inclinable  to  do,)  will  never  be  able  to 
answer  the  arguments  brought  by  St.  Augustine  against  it."* 
Tliis  place  then  was  unhappily  selected  to  prove  a  distinction 
of  the   several  distinct  churches  of  Jews  and  Christians  at 

'  Gal.  ii.  12.  2  Schism,  sect.  8. 

3  Seorsim  quae  ex  Judasis  erant  ecclesiffi   habebantur,  nee  his  quae  erant  ex 
Gentibus  miscebantur. — Ansvv.  to  Schis.  Dis.  ch.  2,  s.  5.    Hieronym.  in  Gal.  1.22. 
*  Reply  to  Oath.  Gent.  ch.  4,  s.  6,  n.  6.     Aug-,  ep.  8.  9,  19,  Hier. 


284  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

Antioch.     But,  it  may  be,  more  evidence  for  it  may  be  seen 
in  the  rescript  of  the  council  of  Jerusalem,  which  is  directed 

'io^i  xttT''  Avui.oxiio.v aS^x^otj  foij  i%  tBvav,  "  To  the  brethren  of 

Antioch,"  those  of  the  Gentiles.^  But  lest  some  hidden  myste- 
ries should  lie  in  this  curtailing  the  words,  let  us  see  them 
at  large.  "  Unto  the  brethren  who  are  of  the  Gentiles  in 
Antioch,  and  Syria,  and  Cilicia."  There  was  nothing  then 
peculiar  to  those  of  the  Gentiles  at  Antioch  more  than  in 
Syria  and  Cihcia;  and  if  those  words  toi^  4  iSvw,  "  to  those 
of  the  Gentiles,"  imply  an  assembly  distinct  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tians, from  the  Jews  at  Antioch,  it  must  do  so  through  all 
Syria,  and  Cilicia;  which  was  PaiiPs  province,  and  not 
Peter's,  as  appears  by  his  travels  in  the  Acts.^  Either  then 
the  apostle  of  the  uncircumcision  must  form  distinct  churches 
of  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  his  preaching  through  Syria  and 
Cilicia,  (which  is  irreconcilable  with  the  former  pretence  of 
distinct  provinces,  asserted  by  the  same  author,  who  pleads 
for  distinct  congregations,)  or  the  T'otj  f|  iOvm,  "  to  those  of  the 
Gentiles,"  can  imply  no  such  thing  as  a  distinct  church  of 
Gentiles  to  whomsoever  it  is  spoken;  and  so  not  at  Antioch 
more  than  through  all  Syria  and  Cilicia.  The  plain  ground 
then  of  the  apostles  inscribing  the  order  of  the  council  to  the 
brethren  of  the  Gentiles,  was,  because  the  matter  of  that 
order  did  particularly  concern  them,  and  not  the  Jews,  as  is 
obvious  to  any  that  will  but  cast  an  eye  upon  the  23,  24,  29, 
verses  of  the  xv.  chapter  of  Acts.  As  well  might  then  an 
order  supposed  from  the  apostles  to  the  several  pastors  of  the 
churches  in  things  concerning  them  as  such,  imply  that  they 
make  distinct  churches  from  their  people,  as  this  order  con- 
cerning the  Gentile  brethren,  being  therefore  directed  to 
them,  doth  imply  their  making  distinct  churches  from  the 
Jewish  brethren  in  the  cities  where  they  lived  together.  What 
is  further  produced  out  of  antiquity  to  this  purpose,  hath 
neither  evidence  nor  pertinency  enough,  to  stop  the  passage 
of  one  who  is  returning  from  this  digression  to  his  former 
matter.  Although  then  we  grant  not  any  such  distinct  coetus 
of  the  Jews  from  the  Christians,  yet  that  hinders  not,  but  that 
both  Jews  and  Christians  joining  together  in  one  church, 
might  retain  still  the  synagogue  form  of  government  among 
them;  the  use  of  which  there  was  no  reason  at  all,  why  the 
Christians  should  scruple,  either  as  Jews  or  Gentiles,  because 
it  imported  nothing  either  typical  and  ceremonial,  nor  heavy 

1  Acts  XV.  23.    Schism,  p.  75.  2  Acts  xv.  41;  xviii.  18;  xxi.  3. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  2.85 

and  burdensome,  which  were  the  grounds  why  former  cus- 
toms in  use  among  the  Jews  were  laid  aside  by  the  Christians. 
But  instead  of  that,  it  was  most  suitable  and  agreeable  to  the 
state  of  the  churches  in  apostolical  times,  which  was  the  third 
consideration  to  make  it  probable,  that  the  synagogue  form 
of  government  was  used  by  the  Christians,  And  the  suitable- 
ness of  this  government  to  the  churches,  lay  in  the  conve- 
niency  of  it  for  the  attaining  all  ends  of  government  in  that 
condition  wherein  the  churches  were  at  that  time.  For  church 
officers  acting  then  either  in  gathering  or  governing  churches, 
without  any  authority  from  magistrates,  such  a  way  of  govern- 
ment was  most  suitable  to  their  several  churches,  whereby  the 
churches  might  be  governed,  and  yet  have  no  dependency  on 
the  secular  power,  for  which  the  way  of  government  in  the 
synagogues  was  most  convenient;  for  the  Jews,  though  they 
enjoyed  a  bare  permission  from  the  civil  state  where  they 
lived,  yet  by  the  exercise  of  their  synagogue  government,  they 
were  able  to  order  all  affairs  belonging  to  the  service  of  God, 
and  to  keep  all  members  belonging  to  their  several  synagogues 
in  unity  and  peace  among  themselves.  The  case  was  the  same 
as  to  synagogues  and  churches;  these  subsisted  by  the  same 
permission  which  the  others  enjoyed;  the  end  of  these  was  the 
service  of  God,  and  preserving  that  order  among  them  which 
might  best  become  societies  so  constituted;  there  can  be  no 
reason  then  assigned,  why  the  apostles  in  settling  particular 
churches  should  not  follow  the  synagogue  in  its  model  of 
government.  These  things  may  suffice  to  make  it  appear 
probable  that  they  did  so,  to  whcih  point  all  these  considera- 
tions tend. 

§  10.  Having  thus  prepared  the  way  by  making  it  probable, 
I  now  farther  inquire  into  the  particular  part  of  government, 
and  what  orders  in  the  synagogue  were,  which  there  is  any 
evidence  for,  that  the  apostles  did  take  up  and  follow.  Here 
I  begin  with  the  thing  first  propounded,  the  orders  of  public 
worship,  which  did  much  resemble  those  of  the  synagogue; 
only  with  those  alterations  which  did  arise  from  the  advancing 
of  Christianity.  That  the  Christians  had  their  public  and  set 
meetings  for  the  service  of  God,  is  evident  from  the  first  rising 
of  a  society  constituted  upon  the  account  of  Christianity.  We 
read  of  the  three  thousand  converted  by  Peter^s  sermon, 
"that  they  continued  in  the  apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship, 
and  breaking  of  bread,  and  prayers."^     Where  we  have  all 

'  Acts  ii.  42. 


286  THE  DIVINE  EIGHT  OF 

that  was  observed  in  the  synagogue,  and  somewhat  more; 
here  there  is  public  joining  together,  impUed  in  the  word 
xoivcivia,  "mutual  participation,  companionship,  fellowship," 
their  solemn  prayers  expressed,  which  were  constantly  ob- 
served in  the  synagogue;  instead  of  reading  the  sections  of  the 
law  and  prophets,  we  have  the  apostles  teaching  by  imme- 
diate inspiration;  and  to  all  these  as  the  proper  service  of 
Christianity,  is  set  down  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper, 
without  which  we  shall  seldom  if  ever  in  the  primitive  church 
read  that  the  public  service  on  Lord's  days  was  performed. 
During  the  apostles'  times,  in  which  there  was  such  a  land- 
flood  of  extraordinary  gifts  overflowing  the  church,  in  the 
public  meetings  we  And  those  persons  who  were  indued  with 
those  gifts,  to  be  much  in  exercising  them,  (as  to  the  custom, 
agreeing  with  the  synagogue;  but  concerning  the  ordering  of 
the  gifts,  exceeding  it,)  for  which  the  apostle  Paul,  for  the 
edification  of  the  church,  lays  down  so  many  rules  in  the  four- 
teenth chapter  to  the  Corinthians.  But  as  soon  as  this  flood 
began  to  abate,  the  public  service  began  to  run  in  its  former 
channel,  as  is  apparent  from  the  unquestionable  testimonies  of 
Justin  Martyr  and  TertuUian,  who  most  fully  relate  to  us 
the  order  of  public  worship  used  among  the  Christians  at  that 
time.  Justin  Martyr,  the  most  ancient  next  to  Clemens, 
(whose  epistle  is  lately  recovered  to  the  Christian  world,)  of 
the  unquestionable  writers  of  the  primitive  church,  gives  us  a 
clear  narration  of  the  public  orders  observed  by  the  church  in 
his  time:  "Upon  the  day  called  Sunday,  all  the  Christians 
whether  in  town  or  country  assemble  in  the  same  place, 
wherein  the  memoirs  or  commentaries  of  the  apostles  and  the 
writings  of  the  prophets  are  read  as  long  as  the  time  will  per- 
mit; then  the  reader  sitting  down,  the  president  of  the  assembly 
stands  up  and  makes  a  sermon  of  instruction  and  exhortation 
to  the  following  so  good  exam{)les.  After  this  is  ended,  we 
all  stand  up  to  prayers;  prayers  ended,  the  bread,  wine,  and 
water,  are  all  brought  forth;  then  the  president  again  praying 
and  praising  to  his  utmost  ability,  the  people  testify  their  con- 
sent by  saying  amen.''''^ 


'  To  Toi)  i^lou  XEyO|MEV(i  y)y.e^a  Ttavroov  xara  ttjXei j  ri  ay^ovi;  //.(vovtcov  etti  to  auTO  (rwEXsufif 
yiVETai,  xai  ra  awofA.vnf/,ovBvf^aTa.  rc»v  aTrofoXa-'V,  n  ra  c-vyy^a.y./jiciT!t  tikv  -sr^-jifnTajv  ava,- 
yi\"ji7HiTai  |ME;^Eif  iy)(0^n,  ura.  rravTafjiivou  tov  avayiVcoTxovTO^,  Tt^Ki^-ax;  ^ta  \oyov  rr,v 
vouSeTiav  xai  'ST^oK\ncnv  tuv  reov  «aX»'v  toutojv  ^.t/nrnxSMi  TroiEirai;  eTrena  av  ca|WE&a  xcivn 
TTaVTEf,  xat  iV)(a.Q  TTCfA.'jrofXiV  Hat  w;  7r^oi<^nf/,iy,  Ttavraf^ivcov  n/xaiv  tjij  eu;^h?  a^roi;  w^sa"- 
ipepCTat  xai  oivof  Hai  v^ai^,  Kai  o  'Tr^otg-ac  Eup^aj  ofJLoix;  Kai  eu)(^a^t^ia^  o's-n  Sway.ig  avna 
ava-TTifxmet,  xai  o  Xao;  evev<f>nfAU  Xtym  ro  A/xvv. — Just.  Mart.  Apol.  2,  p.  98,  ed.  Par. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  287 

What  could  have  been  spoken  with  greater  congruity  or 
correspondency  to  the  synagogue,  abating  the  necessary  ob- 
servance of  the  eucharist,  as  proper  to  Christianity? 

Plere  we  have  the  scriptures  read  by  one  appointed  for  that 
purpose,  as  it  was  in  the  synagogue;  after  wliich  follows  the 
word  of  exhortation  in  use  among  them  by  the  president  of 
the  assembly,  answering  to  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  after 
this,  the  public  prayers  performed  by  the  same  president,  as 
among  the  Jews  by  the  public  minister  of  the  synagogue,  (as  is 
already  observed  out  of  Maimonides,)  then  the  solemn  accla- 
mation of  amen  by  the  people,  the  undoubted  practice  of  the 
synagogue.  To  the  same  purpose  TerttiUian,  who,  if  he 
had  to  set  forth  the  practice  of  the  synagogue,  could  scarcely 
have  made  choice  of  words  more  accommodated  to  that  pur- 
pose. "We  go  together,"  saith  he,  "to  the  assembly  and 
congregation,  that  we  may,  as  if  praying  with  hands  joined, 
by  our  supplications,  importune  God.  We  are  collected  for 
the  remembrance  of  the  sacred  writings;  and  if  there  be  any 
thing  that  the  nature  of  the  present  times  induces  us  to  make 
a  matter  of  admonition  or  acknowledgement,  we  then  with 
these  holy  words  strengthen  our  faith,  elevate  our  hope,  estab- 
lish our  confidence,  and  no  less  by  reiterated  instructions, 
bind  together  the  discipline  of  our  teachers,  and  also  at  the 
same  time,  by  church  authority,  we  strengthen  their  exhorta- 
tions and  reproof.  For  as  it  is,  with  great  propriety,  judged 
by  certain  fathers,  that  if  any  one  should  Ido  so  delinquent, 
that  he  be  banished  from  all  intercourse  of  public  prayer, 
church  fellowship,  and  from  every  sacred  privilege,  that  in 
the  sight  of  God,  it  is  a  judgment  going  beforehand  to  his 
final  sentence.  They  who  are  tried  elders  preside,  having  ob- 
tained that  honour,  not  by  price,  but  by  testimony."^  Where 
we  have  the  same  orders  for  prayers,  reading  the  scriptures 
according  to  occasions,  and  sermons  made  out  of  them  for 
increase  of  faith,  raising  hope,  strengthening  confidence. 
We  have  the  discipline  of  the  church  answering  the  admo- 

'  Coimus  in  coetutnet  congregationem,  ut  ad  Deum  quasi  manti  facia,  preca- 
tionibus  ambiamus  orantes. — Cogimur  ad  divinarum  iiterarum  commemoratio- 
ncm,  si  quid  prsesentiutn  temporutii  qualitas  aut  proeiiionere  cogit  aut  recog- 
iiosceie.  Certe  fidem  sand  us  vocibus  pascimus,  spem  erigimus,  fiduciain 
figimus,  disciplinam  prteccptorum  niliilominus  inculcationibus  dtnsamus;  ibidem 
etiam  cxhortaUones,  castigationes,  et  censura  divina.  Nam  et  judicatur  magno 
cum  pondere,  ut  apud  certus  dc  Dei  conspectu,  summumque  futuri  judicii  prse. 
judicium  est,  siqnis  ita  deliquerit,  ut  a.  communicatione  orationis  et  conventfi  et 
omnis  sancti  commercii  relegetur,  PiBBsidcnt  probati  quique  scniores,  honorem 
istum  non  pretio  sed  testimonio  adepli. — Apologet.  cap.  39. 


288  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

riitions,  and  excommunication  of  the  synogague:  and  last  of 
all,  we  have  the  bench  of  elders  sitting  in  these  assemblies, 
and  ordering  the  things  belonging  to  them. 

Thus  much  for  the  general  correspondency  between  the 
public  service  of  the  church  and  synagogue;  they  that  would 
see  more  particulars,  may  read  our  learned  Mr.  Thorndike's 
discourse  of  the  service  of  God  in  religious  assemblies, 
whose  design  throughout  is  to  make  this  out  more  at  large; 
but  we  must  only  touch  at  these  things  by  the  way;  as  it 
were,  look  into  the  synagogue,  and  go  on  our  way. 

§  11.  We  therefore  proceed  from  their  service,  to  their  cus- 
tom of  ordination,  which  was  evidently  taken  up  by  the 
Christians  from  a  correspondency  to  the  synagogue.  For 
which  we  are  first  to  take  notice,  that  the  rulers  of  the  church 
under  the  gospel,  do  not  properly  succeed  the  priests  and 
Levites  under  the  law,  whose  office  was  ceremonial,  and 
who  v/ere  not  admitted  by  any  solemn  ordination  into  their 
function,  but  succeeded  by  birth  into  their  places;  only  the 
great  sanhedrim  did  judge  of  their  fitness,  as  to  birth  and 
body,  before  their  entrance  upon  their  function.  So  the  Jewish 
doctors  tell  us,  "In  the  stone  parlour,  the  great  sanhedrim  of 
Israel  sat,  and  did  there  judge  the  priests.  The  priest  that 
was  found  defective,  put  on  mourning  garments,  and  so  went 
forth;  he  that  was  not,  put  on  white,  and  went  in  and  minis- 
tered with  the  priests  his  brethren.  And  when  no  fault  was 
found  in  the  sons  of  ./^«ron,  they  observed  a  festival  solemnity 
for  it."i  Three  things  are  observable  in  this  testimony:  First, 
That  the  inquiry  that  was  made  concerning  the  priests  was 
chiefly  concerning  the  purity  of  their  birth,  and  the  freedom 
of  their  bodies  from  those  defects  which  the  law  mentions, 
unless  in  the  case  of  grosser  and  more  scandalous  sins,  as 
idolatry,  murder,  &c.,  by  which  they  were  exluded  from  the 
priestly  office.^  The  Second  is.  That  the  great  sanhedrim 
had  this  inspection  over,  and  examination  of  the  priests  before 
their  admission;  for  what  that  learned  man  Const.  U Em- 
pereur  there  conjectures,  that  there  was  an  ecclesiastical 
sanhedrim^  which  did  pass  judgment  on  these  things,  is  over- 
thrown by  the  very  words  of  the  Talmiidists  already  cited. 
The  last  thing  observable  is,  the  garments  which  the  priests 


—Cod.  Middotli.  c.  5,  s.  3. 

2  V.  Selden,  de  succes.  ad.  Pontiff.  Ebre.  I.  2,  c.  2, 3,  5,  &.  6. 

3  Not  in  Cod.  Middoth.  p.  187,  188. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  289 

puL  on,  viz.  lohite  raiment  upon  his  approbation  by  the  san- 
hedrim, and  soon  after  they  were  admitted  into  the  temple 
with  great  joy;  to  which  our  Saviour  manifestly  alludes, 
Revelation  iii.  4,  5;  "Thou  hast  a  few  names  even  in  Sardis 
which  have  not  defiled  their  garments,  and  they  shall  walk 
with  me  in  white,  for  they  are  worthy.  He  that  overcometh, 
the  same  shall  be  clothed  in  white  raiment."  But  the  priests 
under  the  law,  were  never  ordained  by  imposition  of  hands, 
as  the  elders  and  rulers  of  the  synagogue  were;  and  if  any  of 
them  came  to  that  office,  they  as  well  as  others  had  peculiar 
designation  and  appointment  to  it.  It  is  then  a  common  mis- 
take to  think  thai  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  succeed  by  way 
of  correspondency  and  analogy  to  the  priests  under  the  law; 
which  mistake  hath  been  the  foundation  and  original  of  many 
errors.  For  when  in  the  primitive  church,  the  name  of  priests 
came  to  be  attributed  to  gospel  ministers  from  a  fair  com- 
pliance, (as  was  thought  then,)  of  the  Christians  only  to  the 
name  used  both  among  Jews  and  Gentiles;  in  process  of  time, 
corruptions  increasing  ni  the  church,  those  names  that  were 
used  by  the  Christians  by  way  of  analogy  and  accommoda- 
tion, brought  in  the  things  themselves  primarily  intended  by 
those  names;  so  by  the  metaphorical  names  of  priests  and 
altars,  at  last  came  up  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass;  without  which, 
they  thought  the  names  of  priests  and  altar  were  insignificant. 
This  mistake  we  see  run  all  along  through  the  writers  of 
the  church,  as  soon  as  the  name  priests  was  applied  to  the 
elders  of  the  church,  that  they  derived  their  succession  from 
the  priests  of  Jiaroii's^  order.  "  The  order  of  elders,  (or  pres- 
byters,) took  its  beginning  from  the  sons  of  Aaron.  For  they, 
who  in  the  old  testament  were  called  priests,  are  now  called 
presbyters;  and  they  who  were  termed  chiefs  of  the  priests, 
are  now  called  bishops,  as  Isidore  and  Ivo  tell  us."-^  So  before 
them  both,  Jerome^  in  his  known  epistle  to  Evagriiis  says: 
"And  that  we  may  know  that  the  apostolical  traditions  were 
taken  from  the  Old  Testament,  we  see,  that  what  Aaron,  his 
sons,  and^  the  Levites  were  in  the  temple,  the  bishop,  pres- 
byters and  deacons  claimed  for  themselves  in  the  church."'' 


>  Isid.  Hisp.  de  Ecclesia  offic.  1.  2,  c.  7;  Ivo  Carnot.  decret.  p.  6,  c.  11. 

2  Presbyterorum  ordo  exordium  sumpsit  S.  filiis  Aaron.  Qui  enim  sacerdotes 
vocabantur  in  veteri  lestamento,  hi  sunt  qui  nunc  appellantur  presbyteri:  et  qui 
nuncupabantur  principes  sacerdotum,  nunc  episcopi  nominantur;  as  Isidorus  and 
Ivo  tell  us. 

3  Ep.  85. 

■*  Et  ut  sciamus  traditiones  apostolicas  suraptas  de  veteri  testamento,  quod 
.37 


290  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

From  which  words  a  learned  Doctor,  and  strenuous  asserter 
of  the  Jus  divinum  of  prelacy,  questions  not  but  to  maice  Je- 
rome, either  apparently  contradictious  to  himself,  or  else  to 
assert,  that  the  superiority  of  bishops  above  presbyters  was  by 
his  confession  an  apostolical  tradition.  For  saith  he,  "  No- 
thing more  evident  can  be  said,"  and  s.  2.  "  I  confess  myself 
unable  to  divine  what  can  be  replied  to  this,  or  with  what 
device  of  sophistry  an  affirmation  so  plain  can  be  perverted. 
But  on  the  contrary,  by  those  arguments  which  D.  Blondell, 
Walo  and  Lewis  Capell  have  made  good,  I  have  persuaded 
myself  that  nowhere  can  anything  be  opposed  to  alight  so 
manifest.'"^  In  a  case  then  so  desperate  as  poor  Jerome  lies 
in,  by  a  wound  he  is  supposed  to  have  given  himself;  Avhen 
the  priest  and  the  Levite  had  passed  him  by,  it  will  be  a  piece 
of  charity  in  our  going  that  way  to  consider  a  little  his  case, 
to  see  whether  there  be  any  hopes  of  recovery.  We  take  it 
then  for  granted,  that  Jerom,e  hath  already  said,  that  "  the 
apostle  taught  clearly  that  presbyters  and  bishops  were  the 
same,"^  in  the  same  epistle  which  he  proves  there  at  large; 
and  in  another  place:  "Therefore  as  presbyters  know  that 
they,  from  the  custom  of  the  church,  are  subject  to  him  who 
hath  been  placed  over  them,  so  bishops  know  that  they,  more 
from  that  usage,  than  from  the  fact  of  the  Lord's  setting  it  in 
order,  are  superior  to  presbyters,  and  ought  to  govern  the 
church  for  the  common  welfare."^  The  difficulty  now  lies  in 
the  reconciling  this  with  what  is  before  cited  out  of  the  same 
author;  some  solve  it  by  saying,  that,  in  Jerome's  sense,  wpos- 
tolical  tradition  and  ecclesiastical  custom  are  the  same;  as 
Marcellus  saith  the  observation  of  lent  is  apostolica  traditio, 
"  apostolical  tradition,"  and  on  the  contrary  Luciferian 
saith,  it  is  ecclesise  consuetudo,  "the  custom  of  the  church;" 
so  that  by  apostolical  tradition,  he  meant  not  an  apostolical 
institution,  but  an  ecclesiastical  custom.    And  if  e/erowie  speak 


Aaron  et  filii  ejus  atque  Levitse  in  templo  fuerunt:  hoc  sibi  episcopi  et  presbyteri 
atque  diaconi  vendicent  in  ecclesia. — Dissert,  cap.  28. 

'  Nihil  manifestiusdici  postiut.  Quid  ad  hoc  rcsponderi  possit,  ant  quo  a-Dt^iv 
ipa^fjicmou  artificio  deliniri  ant  deludi  tam  diserta  affirmatio  fateor  ego  me  divi- 
nando  asseqni  non  posse;  sed  e  contra  ex  iis  quae  D.  Blondellus,  quse  Walo,  quee 
Ludov.  Capcllus  hac  in  re  prsBstiterunt,  mihi  persuasissimum  esse,  nihil  uspiani 
contra  apertam  Incem  obtendi  posse. 

2  Apostolus  perspicu6  docet,  eosdem  esse  presbytcros  quos  etepiscopos. 

3  Sicut  ergo  presbyteri  sciunt  se  ex  ecclesise  consuetudine,  ei  qui  sibi  preepo- 
situs  fucrit,  esse  subjectos;  ita  episcopi  noverint  so  magis  consuetudine,  quam 
dispositionis  doniinica  veritate  prcsbyteris  esse  majores,  et  in  commune  dcbcre 
ecclesiam  regcre. — Comment,  in  1  Tit. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  2&i 

according  to  the  general  vogue,  this  solution  may  be  sufficient 
notwithstanding  what  is  said  against  it:  for,  according  to  tiiat 
common  rule  oi  Austin,  "Things  that  were  generally  in  use, 
and  no  certain  autlior  assigned  of  them,  were  attributed  to  the 
apostles."  Two  things  therefore  I  shall  lay  down  for  recon- 
ciling Jerome  to  himself:  The^r*^  is,  the  difference  between 
traditio  apostolica,  and  traditio  apostolorum,  "apostolical 
tradition  and  the  tradition  of  the  apostles;"  this  latter  doth  in- 
deed imply  the  thing  spoken  of  to  have  proceeded  from  the 
apostles  themselves;  but  the  former  may  be  applied  to  what 
was  in  practice  after  the  apostles'  times;  and  the  reason  of  it 
is,  that  whatever  was  done  in  the  primitive  church,  supposed 
to  be  agreeable  to  apostolical  practice,  was  called  apostolical.^ 
Thence  the  bishop's  see  was  called  sedes  apostolica,  "  the 
apostolic  see,"  as  Tertullian  tells  us,  ob  consanguinitatem 
doctrinae,  "  on  account  of  the  affinity  of  doctrine,"  So  Sido- 
nius  Appollinaris  calls  the  see  of  Lupus  the  bishop  of  Tri- 
cassium  in  France,  sedem  apostolicam.  And  the  bishops  of 
the  church  were  called  viri  apostolici,  "  apostolic  men,"  and 
thence  the  constitutions  which  go  under  the  apostles'  names, 
"  were  so  called,"  saith  Jllbaspinaeus,'^  "  from  antiquity.  For 
when  some  of  them  were  made  by  the  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles, who  according  to  the  testimony  of  Tertullian,  were  named 
apostolical  men,  at  first  they  were  called  the  canons  of  the 
apostles;  then  through  the  ignorance  of  certain  men  of  the 
Latin  church,  and  by  taking  away  certain  letters,  were  termed 
apostolical. "3  By  which  we  see  whatever  was  conceived  to 
be  of  any  great  antiquity  in  the  church,  though  it  was  not 
thought  to  have  come  from  the  apostles  themselves,  yet  it  was 
called  apostolical;  so  that  in  this  sense,  traditio  apostolica  is 
no  more  than  traditio  antiqua,  or  ab  apostolicis  viris  pro- 
fecta,  "  ancient  tradition,  or  tradition  proceeding  from  apos- 
tolic men,"  which  was  meant  rather  of  those  that  were  con- 
ceived to  succeed  the  apostles,  than  of  the  apostles  themselves. 
But  I  answer,  secondly,  that  granting  traditio  apostolica  to 
mean  traditio  apostolorum,  yet  Jerome  is  far  from  contra- 
dicting himself,  which  is  obvious  to  any  that  will  read  the 
words  before,  and  consider  their  coherence.    The  scope  and 

1  De  prsBscrip.  adv.  liseret.  c.  32;  Epist.  lib.  6;  Ep.  1. 

2  Observat.  lib.  1,  c.  13. 

3  Ab  antiquitate;  nam  cum  eorum  aliquot  ab  apostolorum  successoribus  (qui 
teste  Tertulliano  apostolici  viri  nominabantur,)  facti  essent,  apostoiicorum  pri- 
mCitn  canones,  delude  nonnuUorum  Latinorum  ignorantia.,  aliquot  literaium  de- 
Iraclione,  apostolorum  dicti  sunt. 


292  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

drift  of  his  epistle,  is  to  chastise  the  arrogance  of  one  wlio 
made  deacons  superior  to  presbyters.  "  I  hear  that  a  certain 
one  hath  broken  out  into  such  folly,  that  he  ranks  deacons 
before  presbyters,  that  is,  before  bishops,"^  and  so  spends  a 
great  part  of  the  epistle,  to  prove  that  a  bishop  and  presbyter 
are  the  same;  and  at  last  brings  in  these  words,  giving  the 
account,  why  Paul  to  Timothy  and  Titus  mentions  no  pres- 
byters:^  «  Because  an  elder^  is  comprised  in  a  bishop,  either, 
therefore,  a  deacon  is  ordained  from  amongst  the  elders,  as  an 
elder  is  proved  to  be  inferior  to  a  deacon,  to  whom  he  ad- 
vances from  a  less;  or  if  an  elder  is  ordained  by  a  deacon,  he 
is  aware  that  in  emolument  he  is  inferior,  but  in  the  priesthood 
the  more  important  character."  And  then  presently  adds, 
"  that  we  may  know  that  the  apostolical  traditions  were  taken 
from  the  old  testament,  we  see  that  what  Aaron,  his  sons,  and 
the  Levites  were  in  the  temple,  the  bishops,  presbyters  and 
deacons  claimed  for  themselves,"  Is  it  imaginable  that  a 
man  who  had  been  proving  all  along  the  superiority  of  a 
presbyter  above  a  deacon,  because  of  his  identity  with  a 
bishop  in  the  apostles'  times,  should  at  the  same  time  say, 
that  a  bishop  was  above  a  presbyter  by  the  apostles'  institu- 
tion, and  so  directly  overthrow  all  he  had  been  saying  before? 
Much  as  if  one  should  go  about  to  prove  that  the  prsefectus 
urbis,  "  governor  or  mayor  of  the  city,"  and  the  curator  urbis, 
"a  police  officer,"  in  Alexander  Sevetms'  times,  were  the 
same  office,  and  to  that  end  should  make  use  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  that  emperor  whereby  he  appointed  fourteen  curatores 
urbis,  and  set  the  prasfectus  in  an  office  above  them.  Such 
an  incongruity  is  scarce  incident  to  a  man  of  very  ordinary 
esteem  for  intellectuals,  much  less  to  such  a  one  as  Jerome  is 
reputed  to  be.  The  plain  meaning,  then,  of  Jero?7^eis  no  more 
but  this:  "  That  as  Aaron  and  his  sons  in  the  order  of  priest- 
hood were  above  the  Levites  under  the  law:  so  the  bishops 

'  Audio  quendam  in  tantam  erupisse  vecordiam  utdiaconos  presbyteris,  id  est, 
cpiscopis  anteferret. 

2  Quia  in  episcopo  presbyter  conlinetur.  Aut  igitur  ex  presbyterio  ordine- 
tur  diaconus,  ut  presbyter  minor  diacono  comprobetur,  in  quern  crescat  ex  parvo; 
aut  si  ex  diacono  ordinatur  presbyter,  noverit  se  lucris  minorem,  sacerdotio  esse 
majorem.  And  tlien  presently  adds,  Et  ut  sciamus  traditiones  apostolicas  sump- 
las  de  veteri  testamento,  quod  Aaron  et  filii  ejus  atq.  LevitsB  in  tempio  fuerunt, 
hoc  sibi  episcopi  et  presbyferi  utque  diaconi  vendicent  in  ecclesia. 

3  Every  one  acquainted  with  ciiurch  }iistory,  is  aware  that  the  same  word 
w^Eo-SuTE^of,  was  translated  either  an  elder  or  presbyter;  because  originally  they 
were  considered  to  be  the  same.  More  recently  some  consider  TrjerCuTifof  to  be 
a  presbyter,  or  priest:  though  priest,  more  strictly  speaking,  signifies  one  who 
offers  a  sacrifice.  See  Parkhurst  and  Sclilcusner,  in  loc. — Am.  Ed. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  293 

and  presbyters  in  the  order  of  the  evangelical  priesthood  are 
above  the  deacons  under  the  gospel."  For  the  comparison 
runs  not  between  Jiaron  and  his  sons  under  the  law,  and 
bishops  and  presbyters  under  the  gospel;  but  between  Jiaron 
and  his  sons  as  one  part  of  the  comparison  under  the  law,  and 
the  Levites  under  them  as  the  other;  so  under  the  gospel, 
bishops  and  presbyters  make  one  part  of  the  comparison,  an- 
swering to  Jiaron  and  iiis  sons  in  that  wherein  they  all  agree, 
viz.  the  order  of  priesthood;  and  the  other  part  under  the 
gospel  is  that  of  deacons  answering  to  the  Levites  under  the 
law.  The  opposition  is  not  then  in  the  power  of  jurisdiction 
between  bishops  and  priests,  but  between  the  same  power  of 
order,  which  is  alike  both  in  bishops  and  presbyters,  (accord- 
ing to  the  acknowledgement  of  all,)  to  the  office  of  deacons 
which  stood  in  competition  with  them.  Thus  I  hope  we  have 
left  Jerome  at  perfect  harmony  with  himself,  notwithstanding 
the  attempt  made  to  make  him  so  palpably  contradict  himself; 
which  having  thus  done,  we  are  at  liberty  to  proceed  in  our 
former  course;  only  hereby  we  see  how  unhappily  those  argu- 
ments succeed  which  are  brought  from  the  analogy  between 
the  Jlaronical  priesthood,  to  endeavour  to  set  up  a  jus  divi- 
num  of  a  parallel  superiority  under  the  gospel.  All  which 
arguments  are  taken  off  by  this  one  thing  we  are  now  upon, 
viz.  that  the  orders  and  degrees  under  the  gospel,  were  not 
taken  up  from  analogy  to  the  temple,  but  to  the  synagogue: 
which  we  now  make  out  as  to  ordination,  in  three  things:  the 
manner  of  conferring  it,  the  persons  authorized  to  do  it,  the 
remaining  effect  of  it  upon  the  person  receiving  it. 

§  12.  First,  For  the  manner  of  conferring  it:  that  under 
the  synagogue  was  done  by  laying  on  of  hands;  which  was 
taken  up  among  the  Jews  as  a  significative  rite  in  the  ordain- 
ing the  elders  among  them,  and  thereby  qualifying  them 
either  to  be  members  of  their  sanhedrim,  or  teachers  of  the 
law.  A  twofold  use  I  find  of  this  symbolical  rite,  beside  the 
solemn  designation  of  the  person  on  whom  the  hands  are  laid. 
The  first  is  to  denote  the  delivery  of  the  person  or  thing 
thus  laid  hands  upon,  for  the  right,  use,  and  peculiar  service 
of  God.  And  that  I  suppose  was  the  reason  of  laying  hands 
upon  the  beast  under  the  law,^  which  was  to  be  sacrificed, 
thereby  noting  their  own  parting  with  any  right  in  it,  and 
giving  it  up  to  be  the  Lord^s  for  a  sacrifice  to  him.  Thus  in 
the  civil  law  this  delivery  is  requisite  in  the  transferring  do- 

'  Levit,  xvi. 


294  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

minion,  which  they  call  translatio  de  manu  in  maniimy 
"transferring  from  hand  to  hand."  The  second  end  of  laying 
on  of  hands  was  the  solemn  invocation  of  the  Divine  pi^e- 
sence  and  assistance  to  be  upon,  and  with  the  person  upon 
whom  the  hands  are  thus  laid.  For  the  hands  with  us  being 
the  instruments  of  action,  they  did  by  stretching  out  their 
hands  upon  the  person,  represent  the  efficacy  of  Divine 
power  which  they  implored  in  behalf  of  the  person  thus 
designed.  "For  then  they  prayed  that  as  the  hand,  the 
symbol  of  energy,  was  placed  on  that  person,  the  Divine 
power  might  rest  on  him,"^  as  Grotius  observes.  Thence  in 
all  solemn  prayers,  wherein  any  person  was  particularly  de- 
signed, they  made  use  of  this  custom  of  imposition  of  hands: 
from  which  custom  Augustine  speaks,  ^uid  aliud  est  ma- 
nuum  impositio  nisi  oratio  siiper  hominem?  "What  else  is 
the  imposition  of  hands,  except  praying  over  a  man?" 
Thence  when  Jacob  prayed  over  Joseph's  children,  he  laid 
his  hands  upon  them;^  so  when  Moses  prayed  over  Joshua.^ 
The  practice  likewise  our  Saviour  used  in  blessing  children, 
healing  the  sick,  and  the  apostles  in  conferring  the  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Ghost;  and  from  thence  it  was  conveyed  into  the  prac- 
tice of  the  primitive  church,  who  used  it  in  any  more  solemn 
invocation  of  the  name  of  God  in  behalf  of  any  particular 
persons,  as  over  the  sick,  upon  repentance  and  reconciliation 
to  the  church,  in  confirmation,  and  in  matrimony;  which, 
(as  Grotius  observes,)  is  to  this  day  used  in  the  Abyssinian 
churches.  But  the  most  solemn  and  peculiar  use  of  this 
imposition  of  hands  among  the  Jews  was  in  the  designing 
of  any  persons  for  any  public  employment  among  them. 
Not  as  though  the  bare  imposition  of  hands  did  confer  any 
power  upon  the  person,  (no  more  than  the  bare  delivery  of  a 
thing  in  law  gives  a  legal  title  to  it,  without  express  trans- 
ferring dominion  with  it,)  but  with  that  ceremony  they  joined 
those  words  Avhereby  they  did  confer  that  authority  upon 
them.  Which  were  to  this  purpose  pD  nx  nn,  Ecce  es  tu 
Ordinatus,  "  Behold,  thou  art  ordained;"  or  -\r\\^  I'Did  'Jv\,  ego 
ordino  te,  "  I  ordain  thee,"  or  ^iod  mnn,  sis  ordinatus,  "Be 
thou  ordained,"  to  which  they  added  according  to  the  autho- 
rity they  ordained  them  to, something  peculiarly  expressing  it; 
whether  it  was  for  causes  pecuniary,  or  binding  and  loosing,  or 

'  Tunc  cnim  oiMbanl  ut  sic  Dei  efRcacia  csFct  super  ilium,  sicut  manns  effi- 
caciaB  syinbolnin,  ei  imi)onebalur. — Ep.  ad  Gallos  ep.  154,  et  16C.  Joh.  Cord. 
et  V.  in'Mat.  ix.  19. 

•2  GciJ.  xlviii.  1 1.  3  Numb,  xxvii.  23. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  295 

ruling  in  the  synagogue.  Which  is  a  tiling  deserving  consider- 
ation by  those  who  use  the  right  of  imposing  hands  in  ordina- 
tion, without  anything  expressing  that  authority  they  convey 
by  that  ordination.  This  custom  being  so  generally  in  use 
among  the  Jews  in  the  time  when  the  apostles  were  sent 
forth  with  authority  for  gathering  and  settling  churches,  we 
find  them  accordingly  making  use  of  this,  according  to  the 
former  practice,  either  in  any  more  solemn  invocation  of  the 
presence  of  God  upon  any  persons,  or  designation  and  ap- 
pointing them  for  any  peculiar  service  or  function.  For  we 
have  no-  ground  to  think  that  the  apostles  had  any  peculiar 
command  for  laying  on  their  hands  upon  persons  in  prayer 
over  them,  or  ordination  of  them.  But  the  thing  itself  being 
enjoined  them,  viz.  the  setting  apart  some  persons  for  the 
peculiar  work  of  attendance  upon  the  necessities  of  the 
churches  by  them  planted,  they  took  up  and  made  use  of  a 
laudable  rite  and  custom  then  in  use  upon  such  occasions. 
And  so  we  find  the  apostles  using  it  in  the  solemn  designation 
of  some  persons  to  the  office  of  deacons,^  answering  to  the 
I'DJns,  "distributers,"  in  the  synagogue,  whose  office  was  to 
collect  the  moneys  for  the  poor,  and  lo  distribute  it  among 
them.  Afterwards  we  read  it  used  upon  an  occasion  not 
heard  of  in  the  synagogue,  which  was  for  the  conferring  the 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost;^  but  although  the  occasion  was  ex- 
traordinary, yet  supposing  the  occasion,  the  use  of  that  rite 
in  it  was  very  suitable,  inasmuch  as  those  gifts  did  so  much 
answer  to  the  nj^Diy,  ^^Shekinah,  or  Divine  presence,"  and  the 
tynipn  nn,  "Booach  Haquodesh;  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  spiritual 
glory,  and  gifts,"  which  the  Jews  conceived  did  rest  upon  those 
who  were  so  ordained  by  imposition  of  hands.  The  next 
time  we  meet  with  this  rite,  was  upon  a  peculiar  designation 
to  a  particular  service  of  persons  already  appointed  by  God 
for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  which  is  of  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas by  the  prophets  and  teachers  at  Antioch;^  whereby 
God  doth  set  forth  the  use  of  that  rite  of  ordination  to  the 
Christian  churches.  Accordingly  we  find  it  after  practised  in 
the  church,  Timothy  being  ordained  "by  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  presbytery.  "■*  And  Timothy  hath  direction  given 
him  for  the  right  management  of  it  afterwards,  "  Lay  hands 
suddenly  on  no  man."*    For  they  that  would  interpret  that 


'  Acts  vi.  6.  2  Acts  viii.  17. 

3  Aots  xiii.  3.  4  1  Tim.  iv.  4. 

6  1  Tim.  V.  22. 


296  THE   DIVINE   RIGHT  OP 

of  reconciling  men  to  the  church  by  that  rite,  must  first  give 
us  evidence  of  so  early  an  use  of  that  custom,  which  doth  not 
yet  appear.  But  there  is  one  place  commonly  brought  to 
prove  that  the  apostles  in  ordaining  elders  in  the  Christian 
churches,  did  not  observe  the  Jewish  form  of  laying  on  of 
hands,  but  observed  a  way  quite  different  from  the  Jewish 
practice,  viz.  appointing  them  by  the  choice,  consent  and  suf- 
frages of  the  people.  Which  place  is  Acts  xiv.  23,  where  it 
is  said  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  x^i'^otovrisavtsi  Ss  avtoi^  'apso6v- 
tspovi  xata  ixxx^aiav.  We  render  it  "ordaining  them  elders  in 
every  church;"  but  others,  from  the  signification  of  the  word 
xsi^otovsiv,  would  have  it  rendered.  When  they  had  "appoint- 
ed" elders  "by  the  suffrages  of  the  people."  But  how  little 
the  people's  power  of  ordination  can  be  inferred  from  these 
words,  will  be  evident  to  any  one  that  shall  but  consider  these 
things.  First,  that  though  x^'-e.otoviw,  "to  vote  by  extending 
the  hands,  or  by  a  show  of  hands,"  did  originally  signify  the 
choosing  by  way  of  suffrage  among  the  Greeks,  yet  before 
the  time  of  Luke^s  writing  this,  the  word  was  used  for  simple 
designation  without  that  ceremony.  So  Hesychius  interprets 
it  by  xdOv^iw,  "to  appoint,"  the  word  used  of  Titus  for  ordain- 
ing elders  in  every  city;^  and  in  Demosthenes^  and  others  it 
occurs  for  vofxo^itsiv,  and  hiatatluv,  "  to  decree  and  appoint;" 
and  that  sense  of  the  word  appears  in  Saint  Luke  himself, 

Acts  X.  41,   (jLO^e^-tvat,   fotj   7i^oxsxB''^otov7;i4.£voi,;   arto   tov  ^sov,    "  VV  it- 

nesses  foreappointed  of  God."  Many  examples  of  this  sig- 
nification are  brought  by  learned  men  of  writers,  before,  and 
about  the  time  when  Luke  wrote,  from  Philo  Judaeus^ 
Josephus,  Jippian,  Lucian  and  others.^  But  secondly, 
granting  it  used  in  the  primary  signification  of  the  word,  yet 
it  cannot  be  applied  to  the  people,  but  to  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas; for  it  is  not  said  that  the  people  did  xi''iotov£Lv,  but  that 
Paul  and  Barnabas  did  xi^'^'^'toviLV.  now  wherever  that  word 
is  used  in  its  first  signification,  it  is  implied  to  be  the  action 
of  the  persons  themselves  giving  suffrages,  and  not  for  other 
persons  appointing  by  the  suffrages  of  others;  Thirdly, 
xec^otovnv  may  import  no  more  than  x^i'^oeitsiv,  "to  lay  hands 
upon,"  and  in  that  laying  on  of  the  hands  must  suppose  the 
stretching  them  out.  Which  is  only  a  common  figure  in 
scripture  for  the  antecedent  to  be  put  for  the  consequent,  or 


•  Titus  i.  5. 

2  V.  Demost.  Phi!.  1,  et  advers.  Simon,  et  Ulpian  in  Schol. 

3  V.  Selden,  de  Syned.  1.  1,  cap.  14,    Grot,  de  Imp.  Sum.  Potest,  c.  10,  s.  5. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  297 

one  part  for  the  whole  action;  and  concerning  this  sense  of 
the  word  in  ecclesiastical  writers,  see  the  large  quotations  in 
Bishop  Bilson^  to  this  purpose.  Fourthly,  It  seems  strangely 
improbable  that  the  apostles  should  put  the  choice  at  that 
time  into  the  hands  of  the  people,  when  there  were  none  fitted 
for  the  work  the  apostles  designed  them  for;  but  whom  the 
apostles  did  lay  their  hands  on,  by  which  the  Holy  Ghost  fell 
upon  them,  whereby  they  were  fitted  and  qualified  for  that 
work.  The  people  then  could  no  ways  choose  men  for  their 
abilities  when  their  abilities  were  consequent  to  their  ordina- 
tion. So  much  to  clear  the  manner  of  ordination  to  have 
been  from  the  synagogue. 

The  second  thing  we  consider,  is,  the  persons  authorized 
to  do  it:  whom  we  view  under  a  double  respect,  before  their 
liberties  loere  bound  up  by  compact  amon^  themselves;  and 
after.  First,  before  they  had  restrained  themselves  of  their 
own  liberty,  then  the  general  rule  for  ordinations  among  them 
was  vnoSiS  piD  pDJiy  "3  Sn,  "every  one  regularly  ordained, 
himself  had  the  power  of  ordaining  his  disciples,"  as  Maimo- 
nides^  affirms.  To  the  same  purpose  is  that  testimony  of  the 
Gemara  Babylonia  in  Master  Selden,  "Rabbi  Abba  Bar 
Jonah  said,  that  in  times  of  old,  every  one  was  wont  to  ordain 
his  own  disciples,"^  to  which  purpose  many  instances  are  there 
brought.  But  it  is  generally  agreed  among  them,  that  in  the 
time  of  Hillel  this  course  was  altered,  and  they  were  re- 
strained from  their  former  liberty;  in  probability  finding  the 
many  inconveniences  of  so  common  ordinations;  or,  as  they 
say,  out  of  their  great  reverence  to  the  house  of  Hillel,  they 
then  agreed  that  none  should  ordain  others  without  the  pre- 
sence of  the  X'tyjn,  "  the  prince  of  the  sanhedrim,''^  or  a  license 
obtained  from  him  for  that  end;  and  it  was  determined  that 
all  ordinations  without  the  consent  of  the  prince  of  the  sanhe- 
drim should  be  looked  upon  as  null  and  void;  which  is  at- 
tested by  the  former  authors.  The  same  distinction  may  be 
observed  under  the  gospel  in  reference  to  the  fixed  officers  of 
the  church;  for  we  may  consider  them  in  their  first  state  and 
period,  as  Hierom'^  tells  \xs,communi  presbyterorum  concilia 
ecclesise  gubernabantur,  that  "  the  churches  were  ruled  by 
the  common  council  of  the  presbyters:"  before  the  jurisdiction 


'  Perpet.  Govern,  of  Christ's  Church,  c.  7. 

2  Tract.  San.  cap.  4,  s.  5.     Ad  tit.  Sanhed.  c.  I.     De  Syned.  1.  2,  c.  7.  s.  1. 

3  njiB'Nn^  3N  '3"i  ION  n'n  ^2  nnx  nnxi  hjdo  nx  vTDbn. 

*  Hieronym.  in  1  Tit. 
38 


298  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

of  presbyters  was  restrained  by  mutual  consent,  in  this  in- 
stance doubtless,  the  presbyters  enjoyed  the  same  liberty  that 
the  presbyters  among  the  Jews  did,  of  ordaining  other  presby- 
ters by  the  power  with  which  they  were  invested  at  their  own 
ordination.  To  which  purpose  we  shall  only  at  present  take 
notice  of  the  confession  of  two  canonists,  who  are  the  highest 
among  the  papists,  for  defence  of  a  distinct  order  of  episco- 
pacy. Yet  Gratian  himself  confesseth,  "We  say,  that  deacon- 
ships  and  presbyterships  are  sacred  orders:  and  it  is  reported 
that  the  primitive  church  had  these  for  its  only  officers."^ 
And  Johannes  Semeca  in  his  Gloss  upon  the  canon  law: 
"they  say,  indeed,  that  in  the  first  primitive  church,  the  office 
of  bishops  and  priests  were  the  same;  but  in  the  second  primi- 
tive church,'-  {i.  e.  in  the  second  epoch  of  the  primitive  church,) 
"  both  the  names  and  the  offices  began  to  be  distinguished. "^ 
Here  we  have  a  distinction  of  the  primitive  church  very  agree- 
able b(^th  to  the  opinion  of  Hiero?n,  and  the  matter  we  are  now 
upon;  in  the  first  primitive  church,  the  presbyters  all  acted  in 
common  for  the  welfare  of  the  church,  and  either  did  or  might 
ordain  others  to  the  same  authority  with  themselves;  because 
the  intrinsical  power  of  order  is  equally  in  them,  and  in  those 
who  were  after  appointed  governors  over  presbyteries.  And 
the  collation  of  orders  doth  come  from  the  power  of  order, 
and  not  merely  from  the  power  of  jurisdiction.  It  being  like- 
wise fully  acknowledged  by  the  schoolmen,^  that  bishops  are 
not  superior  above  presbyters,  as  to  the  power  of  order.  But 
the  clearest  evidence  of  this,  is  in  the  church  of  Alexandria,  of 
which  Hieroni  speaks:  "  For  at  Alexandria,  from  Mark  the 
evangelist  to  Heracles  and  Dionysius,  bishops,  that  tlie  pres- 
byters always  elected  one  from  amongst  themselves,  and 
having  placed  him  in  a  higher  rank,  named  him  bishop:  after 
the  maimer  that  an  army  chooses  its  general,  tlie  deacons 
select  one  from  amongst  themselves,  whom  they  know  to  be 
industrious,  and  him  they  call  archdeacon."^     That  learned 


'  Sacros  ordines  diciinus  diaconutum  ct  presbyteratum;  hos  quidcm  solos  ec- 
clesia  primitiva  habuisse  dictur. — Dist.  60,  c.  Mull,  ex  urb.  Pap. 

2  Dieunt  quideni  quod  in  ecclesia  prima  primitiva  commune  erat  nfficium  rpis- 
coporum  et  sacerdotum,  et  nomina  erant  communin. Sed  in  secunda  primi- 
tive coeperunt  distingui  et  nomina  et  officia. — Dist.  95,  Gloss. 

3  V.  Francis  Mason's  Defence  of  Ordination  of  Presbyters. 

*  Nam  Alexandria  &.  Marco  evangelista.  usq;  ad  Hcraclam  et  Dionysium  cpis- 
copos,  presbyteri  semper  unum  ex  se  electnm,  in  excelsiori  gradu  collocatiim, 
episcopum  nominabant;  quomodo  si  exercilus  imperatort  m  facial,  aut  diaconi 
eljgant  de  se  quern  industrium  noverint,  et  archidiaoonum  vocent. — Ep.  85,  ad 
£vagrium. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  299 

doctor  who  would  persuade  us  that  the  presbyters  did  only 
make  choice  of  the  person,  but  the  ordination  was  performed 
by  otiier  bishops,  would  do  weU  first  to  teU  us,  who  and 
where  those  bishops  in  Egypt  were,  who  did  consecrate  or 
ordain  the  bishop  of  Alexandria^  after  his  election  by  the  pres- 
byters, especially,  while  Egypt  remained  but  one  province, 
under  the  government  of  the  prxfectus  Augustalis.  Secondly, 
how  had  this  been  in  the  least  pertinent  to  Hieroni'"^  purpose 
to  have  made  a  particular  instance  in  the  church  of  Alexan- 
dria, for  that  which  was  common  to  all  other  churches  besides? 
For  the  old  rule  of  the  canon  laio^  for  bishops  was,  electio 
clericorum  est,  consensus  pinncipis, petitio plebis,  "the  elec- 
tion of  the  clergy  is  the  consent  of  the  prince  and  the  petition 
of  the  people."  Thirdly,  this  election  in  Hierom  must  imply 
the  conferring  the  power  and  authority  whereby  the  bishop 
acted.  Foi-, first,  the  first  setting  up  of  his  power  is  by  Hierom 
attributed  to  this  choice,  as  appears  by  his  words:  "For  after 
one  was  elected,  who  was  set  over  the  rest,  a  remedy  was 
established  against  schism,  lest  one  drawing  to  himself  a  party, 
should  rend  the  church  of  Christ."^.  Whereby  it  is  evident 
Hierom  attributes  the  first  original  of  that  exsors  potestas, 
"power  granted  by  choice,"  as  he  calls  it  elsewhere,  in  the 
bishop  above  presbyters,  not  to  any  apostolical  institution, 
but  to  the  free  choice  of  the  presbyters  themselves,  which 
doth  fully  explain  what  he  means  by  consuetudo  ecclesise, 
"  the  custom  of  the  church,"  before  spoken  of,  viz.  that 
which  came  up  by  a  voluntary  act  of  the  governors  of 
churches  themselves.  Secondly,  it  appears  that  by  election, 
he  means  conferring  authority,  by  the  instances  he  brings  to 
that  purpose:  as  the  Roman  armies  choosing  their  emperors, 
who  had  then  no  other  power  but  what  they  received  by 
the  length  of  the  sword;  and  the  deacons  choosing  their  arch- 
deacon, who  had  no  other  power  but  what  was  merely  con- 
ferred by  the  choice  of  the  college  of  deacons.  To  which  we 
may  add  what  Eutychius^  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  saith  in 
liis  Origines  Ecclesix  Alexandrinse,'^  published  in  Arabic  by 
our  most  learned  Selden,  who  expressly  affirms,  "that  the 
twelve  presbyters  constituted  by  Mark  upon  the  vacancy  of 

1  V.  Selden.  ad  Eutycb.  n.  22,  p.  143. 

2  Dist.  62,  sect.  hser. 

3  Quod  auteni  postea  unus  eleetus  est,  qui  caeteris  praeponerctur,  in  scliismatis 
remedium  factum  est,  ne  unusquisque  ad  se  trahens  Cliristi  ecclesiam  rumperet. 
— Advers.  Lucil. 

4  Origin,  p.  2D,  30. 


300  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

the  see,  did  choose  out  of  their  number  one  to  be  head  over  the 
rest,  and  the  other  eleven  did  lay  their  hands  upon  him,  and 
blessed  him,  and  made  him  patriarch."  Neither  is  the  autho- 
rity oi  Eutychius  so  much  to  be  slighted  in  this  case,  coming 
so  near  to  Hierom  as  he  doth,  who  doubtless,  had  he  told  us 
that  Mark  and  Jlnianus^  &c.  did  all  there  without  any  pres- 
byters, might  have  had  the  good  fortune  to  have  been  quoted 
with  as  much  frequency  and  authority  as  the  anonymous 
author  of  the  martyrdom  of  Timothy  in  Phoiiiis,^  (who  there 
unhappily  follows  the  story  of  the  seven  sleepers,)  or  the 
author  of  the  Apostolical  constitutions,  whose  credit  is  ever- 
lastingly blasted  by  the  excellent  Mr.  Duillt  De  Pseudepi- 
graphis  Jijjostoloruni;  "  on  the  counterfeited  writings  of  the 
apostles,"  so  much  doth  men's  interest  tend  to  the  enliancing 
or  abating  the  esteem  and  credit  both  of  the  dead  and  the 
living.  By  these  we  see,  that  where  no  positive  restraints 
from  consent  and  choice,  for  the  unity  and  peace  of  the  church, 
have  restrained  men's  liberty  as  to  their  external  exercise  of 
the  power  of  order  or  jurisdiction,  every  one  being  himself 
advanced  into  the  authority  of  a  church  governor,  hath  an 
internal  power  of  conferring  the  same  on  persons  fit  for  it. 
To  which  purpose  "  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presby- 
tery,"^  is  no  ways  impertinently  alleged,  although  we  sup- 
pose St.  Paul  to  concur  in  the  action,  (as  it  is  most  probable 
he  did,)  because,  if  the  presbytery  had  nothing  to  do  in  the 
ordination,  to  what  purpose  were  their  hands  laid  on  him? 
Was  it  only  to  be  witnesses  of  the  fact,  or  to  signify  their 
consent?  both  those  might  have  been  done  without  their  use 
of  that  ceremony;  which  will  scarcely  be  instanced  in,  to  be 
done  by  any  but  such  as  had  power  to  confer  what  was  signi- 
fied by  that  ceremony.  We  come,  therefore,  to  the  second 
period  or  state  of  the  church,  when  the  former  liberty  was 
restrained,  by  some  act  of  the  church  itself,  for  preventing  the 
inconveniences  which  might  follow  the  too  common  use  of 
the  former  liberty  of  ordinations,  so  Antonius  de  BosellisfuWy 
expresseth  my  meaning  in  this;  "  Every  presbyter  and  pres- 
byters did  ordain  indifferently,  and  thence  arose  schisms:"^ 
thence  the  liberty  was  restrained  and  reserved  peculiarly  to 
some  persons  who  did  act  in  the  several  presbyteries,  as  the 
N'tj'jn  or  "Prince"  of  the  sanhedrim,  without  whose  presence 

'  Biblioth.  Cod.  254. 
2  1  Tim.  iv.  14. 

^  Quilibet  presbyter  el  presbyteri  ordinabant  indiscretd,  et  schismata  orieban- 
tur. — Rosellis  de  pot.  imper.  et  Papae.  p.  4,  c.  18. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  301 

no  ordination  by  the  church  was  to  be  looked  on  as  regular. 
The  main  controversy  is,  when  this  restraint  began,  and  by 
whose  act;  whether  by  any  of  the  apostles,  or  only  by  the 
prudence  of  the  church  itself,  as  it  was  with  the  sanhedrim. 
But  in  order  to  our  peace,  I  see  no  such  necessity  of  deciding 
it,  both  parties  granting  that  in  the  church  such  a  restraint 
was  laid  on  the  liberty  of  ordaining  presbyters;  and  the  ex- 
ercise of  that  power  may  be  restrained  still,  granting  it  to  be 
radically  and  intrinsically  in  them.  So  that  this  controversy 
is  not  such  as  should  divide  the  church.  For  those  that  are 
for  ordinations  only  by  a  superior  order  in  the  church,  ac- 
knowledging a  radical  power  for  ordination  in  presbyters, 
which  may  be  exercised  in  the  case  of  necessity,  do  thereby 
make  it  evident,  that  none  who  grant  that,  do  think  that  any 
positive  law  of  God  hath  forbidden  presbyters  the  full  power 
of  ordination;  for  then  it  must  be  wholly  unlawful,  and  so  in 
case  of  necessity  it  cannot  be  valid.  Which  doctrine  I  dare 
with  some  confidence  assert  to  be  a  stranger  to  our  church  of 
England,  as  shall  be  largely  made  appear  afterwards.  On 
the  other  side,  those  who  hold  ordinations  by  presbyters  law- 
ful, do  not  therefore  hold  them  necessary,  but  it  being  a  mat- 
ter of  liberty,  and  not  of  necessity,  (Christ  having  nowhere 
said  that  none  but  presbyters  shall  ordain,)  this  power  then 
may  be  restrained  by  those  who  have  the  care  of  the  church's 
peace;  and  matters  of  liberty  being  restrained,  ought  to  be 
submitted  to,  in  order  to  the  church's  peace.  And  therefore 
some  have  well  observed  the  difference  between  the  opinions  of 
Hierom  and  Jlrius.  For  as  to  the  matter  itself,  I  believe  upon 
the  strictest  inquiry  J/ef/mo'^^  judgment  will  prove  true,  that 
Hierom,  Jiiistin,  Ambrose,  Sedulius,  Prirnasiiis,Chrysostom, 
Theodoret,  Theophylact,\vexe  all  of  .^r«<*'5  judgment,  as  to  the 
identity  of  both  name  and  order  of  bishops  and  presbyters  in 
the  primitive  church:  but  here  lay  the  difference,  Arius  from 
hence  proceeded  to  separation  from  bishops  and  their  churches, 
because  they  were  bishops.  And  Blondell  well  observes  that 
the  main  ground  why  Ariiis'^  was  condemned,  was  for  unneces- 
sary separation  from  the  church  of  6'e6as//a,  and  those  bishops 
too  who  agreed  with  him  in  other  things,  as  Eustathiits  the 
bishop  did:  whereas,  had  his  mere  opinion  about  bishops  been 
the  ground  of  his  being  condemned,  there  can  be  no  reason 
assigned,  why  this  heresy,  if  it  was  then  thought  so,  was  not 

'  Mich.  Medinas  de  sacr.  horn.  orig.  el  conlin.  1.  ],  cap.  5. 
2  Praef.  p.  58. 


302  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

mentioned  either  by  Soo^ntes,  Theodoret,  Sozomen,  or  Eva- 
grius,  before  vvliose  time  he  lived;  when  yet  tiiey  mention  the 
Eustathians,  who  were  cotemporaries  with  him.  But  for 
Epiphaniiis  and  Jiugustine^  who  have  hsted  iiim  in  the  roll 
of  heretics,  it  either  was  for  the  other  heretical  opinions  main- 
tained by  him,  or  they  took  the  name  heretic,  (as  it  is  evident 
they  often  did,)  for  one,  wlio,  upon  a  matter  of  difierent 
opinion  from  the  present  sense  of  tiie  church,  did  proceed  to 
make  separation  from  the  unity  of  the  catholic  church,  which 
1  take  to  be  the  truest  account  of  the  reputed  heresy  oi  Jlrius. 
For  otherwise  it  is  likely  that  Jerome,  who  maintained  so 
great  correspondence  and  familiarity  with  Epiphaniiis,  and 
thereby  could  not  but  know  what  was  the  cause  why  Ariiis 
was  condemned  for  heresy,  should  himself  run  into  the  same 
heresy,  and  endeavour  not  only  to  assert,  hut  to  avouch  and 
maintain  it  against  the  judgment  of  the  whole  church?  Jerome 
therefore  was  not  ranked  with  Jiriiis,  because,  though  he  held 
the  same  opinion  as  to  bishops  and  presbyters,  yet  he  was  far 
from  the  consequence  of  Ariiis,  that  therefore  all  bishops 
were  to  be  separated  from;  nay,  he  was  so  far  from  thinking 
it  necessary  to  cause  a  schism  in  the  church,  by  separating 
from  bishops,  that  his  opinion  is  clear,  that  the  first  institution 
of  them,  was  for  preventing  schisms,  and  therefore  for  peace 
and  unity  he  thought  their  institution  very  useful  in  the  church 
of  God.  And  among  all  those  fifteen  testimonies  produced  by 
a  learned  writer  out  of  Jerome  for  the  superiority  of  bishops 
above  presbyters,  I  cannot  find  one  that  doth  found  it  upon 
any  divine  right,  but  only  upon  their  convenience  of  such  an 
order  for  the  peace  and  unity  of  tiie  church  of  God,  which  is 
his  meaning  in  tliat  place  most  produced  to  this  purpose:  "the 
safety  of  the  church  depends  on  the  dignity  of  the  chief  minis- 
ter, to  whom,  if  election  and  eminent  power  are  not  given  by 
all,  there  will  be  as  many  schisms  in  the  churches  as  there 
are  ministers."^  Where  nothing  can  be  more  evident  than 
that  he  would  have  some  snpereminent  power  attributed  to 
the  bishop  for  preventing  schisms  in  the  church.  But  granting 
some  passages  may  have  a  more  favourable  aspect  towards 
the  superiority  of  bishops  over  presbyters  in  his  other  writings, 
I  would  fain  know  whether  a  man's  judgment  must  be  taken, 
from  occasional  and  incidental  passages,  or  from  designed  and 


'  Ecclesise  salus  in  summi  sacerdotis  dignitate  pendet,  cui  si  non  exsors  quie- 
darn  et  ab  omnibus  cniinens  detur  potestas,  tot  in  ecclesis  efBcientur  schismata, 
qiiot  sacerdotes. — Dial,  ad  Lucifer. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  303 

set  discourses;  which  is  as  much  as  to  ask,  whether  the  hvely 
represoiitalioii  of  a  man  by  picture,  may  be  best  taken,  when 
in  haste  of  otlier  business  he  passelh  by  us,  giving  only  a  glance 
of  his  countenance,  or  when  he  purposely  and  designedly  sits, 
in  order  to  that  end  that  his  countenance  may  be  truly  repre- 
sented? Besides,  it  is  well  l^nown  that  Hierom  in  his  com- 
mentaries on  scripture,  (where  he  doth  not  expressly  declare 
his  own  opinion,)  doth  often  transcribe  what  he  finds  in  others, 
witliout  setting  down  the  name  of  any  author  he  had  it  from. 
For  which  we  have  this  ingenuous  confession  in  his  epistle  to 
Jlugustine:  "I  would  simply  confess,  that  I  have  read  all 
these  passages,"  (speaking  of  former  commentaries,)  "and 
having  preserved  many  in  my  mind,  a  scribe  being  sent  for,  I 
dictated,  without  remembering  the  order,  the  words,  or  exact 
meaning,  either  that  which  was  my  own,  or  what  was  an- 
other's."^ A  strange  way  of  writing  commentaries  on  scrip- 
ture, wherein  a  man  having  jumbled  other  men's  notions 
together  in  his  brain,  by  a  kind  of , lottery,  draws  out  what 
next  conies  to  hand,  without  any  choice:  yet  this  we  see  was 
his  {)ractice,  and  therefore  he  puts  Jiustin  to  this  hard  task  of 
examining  what  all  other  men  had  written  before  him,  and 
whether  he  had  not  transcribed  out  of  them,  before  lie  would 
have  him  charge  him  with  anything  which  lie  finds  in  his 
commentaries.  How  angry  then  would  that  hasty  adversary 
have  been,  if  men  had  told  him  he  had  contradicted  himself 
in  what  he  writes  on  the  forty-fifth  Psalm  about  bishops,  if 
it  be  compared  with  his  commentaries  on  Titus,  where  he 
professeth  to  declare  his  opinion,  or  his  epistles  to  Evagriiis 
and  Oceamis!  But  yet  something  is  pleaded  even  from  those 
places  in  Hierom,  wherein  he  declares  his  opinion  more  fully, 
as  though  his  opinion  was  only,  that  Christ  himself  did  not 
appoint  episcopacy,  which  (they  say)  he  means  by  Dominica 
disjjosifio,  ^Hhe  order  designed  by  the  Lord,"  but  that  the 
apostles  did  it,  which,  in  opposition  to  the  former,  he  calls 
ecclesise  consuetudo,  but  elsewhere  explains  it  by  traditio 
apostolica;  and  this  they  prove  by  two  things;  First,  The 
occasion  of  the  institution  of  episcopacy,  which  is  thus  set 
down  by  him,  "before  that  through  the  instigation  of  the 
devil,  fancies  existed  in  religion,  and  it  was  said  amongst 
the  people,  I  am  of  Paul,  I  of  Apollos,  but  I  of  Cephas,  the 


•  Itaquc  ut  simpliciter  fatear,  \e^i  liaec  omnia  ct  in  mente  mea  plurima  con- 
servans:  accito  notario,  vel  mea  vel  aliena  dictavi,  nee  ordinis,  nee  verborum 
interdum,  nee  sensuum  memor. — Ep.  August,  ep.  ll. 


304  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

churches  were  governed  by  a  common  council  of  the  elders."^ 
Thence  it  is  argued,  that  the  time  of  this  institution  of  bishops 
was  when  it  was  said  at  Corinth,  I  am  of  Paul ^  I  of  Apollos, 
and  I  of  Cephas;  which  was  certainly  in  apostohcal  times. 
But  to  this  it  is  answered:  First,  that  it  is  impossible  Hierom^s 
meaning  should  be  restrained  to  that  individual  time,  because 
the  arguments  which  Hierom  brings  that  the  name  and  office 
of  bishops  and  presbyters  were  the  same,  were  from  things 
done  after  this  time.  PauVs  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
wherein  he  reproves  their  schisms,  was  written  according  to 
LudovicKs  Cappellus,^  in  the  twelfth  year  of  Claudius,  of 
Christ  fifty-one,  after  which  Paul  wrote  his  epistle  to  Titus, 
from  whose  words  Hierom  grounds  his  discourse;  but  most 
certainly  PauVs  epistle  to  the  Philippians  was  not  written 
till  Paul  was  prisoner  as  Rome;  the  time  of  writing  of  it  is 
placed  by  Cappellus  in  the  third  of  iVero;  of  Christ  fifty-six; 
by  Blondell  fitty-seven;  by  our  Lightfoot  fifty-nine;  by  all, 
long  after  the  former  to  the  Corinthians;  yet  from  the  first 
verse  of  this  epistle,  Heriom  fetcheth  one  of  his  arguments. 
So  PauVs  charge  to  the  elders  at  Miletus,  Peter^s  epistle  to 
the  dispersed  Jews,  were  after  that  time  too,  yet  from  these 
are  fetched  two  more  of  Hierom'' s  arguments.  Had  he  then 
so  little  common  sense,  as  to  say,  that  episcopacy  was  instituted 
upon  the  schism  at  Corinth,  and  yet  bring  all  his  arguments 
for  parity,  atlter  the  time  that  he  sets  for  the  institution  of  epis- 
copacy? But,  secondly,  Hierom,  doth  not  say,  "when  it  was 
said  amongst  the  Corinthians,  I  am  of  Paul,  &c.,  but  when  it 
was  said  amongst  the  people,  I  am  of  Paul,  &c;"^  so  that  he 
speaks  not  of  that  particular  schism,  but  of  a  general  and 
universal  schism  abroad  among  most  people,  which  was  the 
occasion  of  appointing  bishops;  and  so  speaks  of  others  imi- 
tating the  schism  and  language  of  the  Corinthians.  Thirdly, 
had  episcopacy  been  instituted  on  the  occasion  of  the  schism 
at  Corinth,  certainly  of  all  places,  we  should  the  soonest  have 
heard  of  a  bisiiop  at  Corinth  for  the  remedying  of  it;  and  yet 
almost  of  all  places,  those  heralds  that  derive  the  succession 
of  bishops  from  the  apostles'  times,  are  the  most  plunged, 
whom  to  fix  on  at  Corinth.     And  they  that  can  find  any  one 

'  Antequam  diaboli  instinctu,  studia  in  rcligione  fiererit,  et  dicerotur  in  populis; 
ego  sum  Pauli,  ego  ApoUos,  ego  autem  Cephse,  cotnrauni  presbyterorum  consilio 
ecclesisB  gubernabantur. 

2  Hist.  Apostolica.  p.  70. 

3  Cum  dicerotur  apud  Corinthios,  ego  sum  Pauli,  etc.  sed  cum  diceretur  in 
populis,  ego  sum  Pauli,  etc. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  305 

single  bishop  at  Corinth  at  the  time  when  Clemens  wrote  his 
epistle  to  them,  (about  another  schism  as  great  as  the  former, 
which  certainly  had  not  been  according  to  their  opinion,  if  a 
bishop  had  been  there  before,)  must  have  better  eyes  and 
judgment,  than  the  deservedly  admired  Grotius,  who  brings 
this  in  his  epistle  to  Bignonius  as  one  argument  of  the 
undoubted  antiquity  of  that  epistle:  "Because  he  nowhere 
makes  mention  of  the  authority  of  that  free  choice  of  bishops, 
which,  according  to  the  custom  of  the  church,  began  after  the 
death  of  Mark,  at  Alexandria,  and  from  that  example,  else- 
where to  be  introduced;  but  evidently,  as  Paul  the  apostle 
shows,  that  the  churches  were  governed  by  the  common  coun- 
cil of  the  presbyters,  who,  and  the  bishops  themselves,  are 
reported  to  have  been  governed  by  St.  Paul.^'^  What  could 
be  said  with  greater  freedom,  that  there  was  no  such  episco- 
pacy then  at  Corinth?  Fourthly,  They  who  use  this  argu- 
ment, are  greater  strangers  to  St.  Jerome^ s  language  than  they 
would  seem  to  be:  whose  custom  it  is  upon  incidental  occa- 
sions to  accommodate  the  phrase  and  language  of  scripture  to 
them:  as  when  he  speaks  of  Chrysostorri's  fall,  cecidit  Baby- 
lon, cecidit,  "Babylon  is  fallen,  is  fallen;"  of  the  bishops  of 
Palestine,  multi  utroque  claiidicant  pede,  "many  are  lame 
of  both  feet;"  of  the  Roman  clergy,  pharisaso7'um  conclama- 
vit  senatus,  "  the  senate  of  the  Pharisees  cried  out;"  but 
which  is  most  clear  to  our  purpose,  he  applies  this  very  speech 
to  the  men  of  his  own  time;  "when  we  all  speak  not  the 
same  thing,  but  one  says  one  thing,  and  another  another,  I  am 
of  Paul,  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  we  divide  the  unity 
of  the  spirit,  and  we  rend  it  into  parties  and  members.'"^  All 
which  instances  are  produced  by  Blondell,^  but  have  the  good 
fortune  to  be  passed  over  without  being  taken  notice  of  But 
supposing,  say  they,  that  it  was  not  till  after  the  schism  at 
Corinth,  yet  it  must  needs  be  done  by  the  apostles,  else  how 
could  it  be  said  to  be  "decreed  throughout  the  whole  world, 
that  one  chosen  from  amongst  the  presbyters,  should  be  placed 
over  the  rest?     For  how  (saith  a  learned  man)  could  it  hap- 

•  Quod  nusquatn  meminit  exsortis  illius  episcoporum  auctoritatis;  quas  ecclesiae 
consuetudine,  post  Marci  mortem  Alexandrise,  atq;  eo  exemplo  alibi,  introduci 
coepit;  sed  plan6,  ut  Paulus  apostolus  ostendit,  ecclesias  communi  presbyterorum, 
qui  iidem  omnes  et  episcopi  ipsi  Pauloq,  dicuntur  consilio  fuisse  gubernatas. — 
Ep.  ad  Gal.  ep.  162. 

2  Quando  non  id  ipsum  omnes  loquimur,  et  alius  dicit,  ego  sum  Pauli,  ego 
Apollo,  ego  Cephte,  dividimus  spiritus  unitatem,  et  earn  in  partes  et  membra  dis- 
cerpimus. 

s  Apol.  p.  4. 
.39 


306  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

pen,  that  it  should  be  decreed  throughout  the  whole  world, 
when  to  decree  that,  no  general  council  had  been  assen:ible(>, 
if  it  had  not  been  done  by  the  apostles  themselves,  propagating 
the  faith  throughout  the  world,  and  with  that  faith  appointing 
this  rule  for  the  government  of  churches?"^  So  that  lie  con- 
ceives, so  general  an  order  could  not  he  made,  unless  the 
apostles  themselves  at  that  time  were  the  authors  of  it. 

But  Ji7'sf,  Jerome  in  ioto  orbe  decretiim  est,  "it  hath  been 
decreed  throughout  the  whole  world,"  relates  not  to  an  ante- 
cedent order,  which  was  the  ground  of  the  institution  of  epis- 
copacy, but  to  the  universal  establishment  of  that  order  which 
came  up  upon  the  occasion  of  so  many  schisms,  it  is  something 
therefore  consequent  upon  the  first  setting  up  episcopacy, 
which  is  the  general  obtaining  of  it  in  the  churches  of  Christ, 
when  they  saw  its  usefulness  in  order  to  the  cluirch's  peace; 
therefore  the  emphasis  lies  not  in  decretiim  est,  but  in  toto 
orbe;  noting  how  suddenly  this  order  met  with  universal  ac- 
ceptance, when  it  first  was  brought  up  in  the  church  after  the 
apostles'  death.  Which  that  it  was  Jerome^s  meaning,  ap- 
pears by  what  he  saith  after,  "  but  by  degrees,  that  the  nur- 
series of  dissensions  might  be  plucked  up,  the  care  of  this  was 
transferred  to  one."^  Where  he  notes  the  gradual  obtaining 
of  it:  which  I  suppose  was  thus,  according  to  his  opinion;  first 
in  the  college  of  presbyters  appointed  by  the  apostles,  there 
being  a  necessity  of  order,  there  was  a  president  among  tliem 
who  had  dvesv-gMv  nov  n^ar^nato^,  "  an  authority  residing  in  him- 
self over  the  affair,"  as  the  president  of  the  senate,  i.  e.  did 
moderate  the  affairs  of  the  assembly,  by  proposing  matters  to 
it,  gathering  voices,  being  the  first  in  all  matters  of  concern- 
ment, but  he  had  not  a.v6ivtidv  tcov  ewsS^uv,  "  the  inherent  au- 
thority of  the  council,"  as  Casauhon^  very  well  distingnisheth 
them,  i.e.  had  no  power  over  his  fellow  presbyters,  but  that 
still  resided  in  the  college  or  body  of  them.  After  this  when 
the  apostles  were  taken  out  of  the  way,  who  kept  the  main 
power  in  their  own  hands  of  ruling  the  several  presbyteries, 
or  delegated  some  to  do  it,  (who  had  a  main  hand  in  the 


'  Toto  orbe  decretum,  ut  unus  de  presbytcris  electus  siiperponeretur  cseteris? 
Quomodo  enim  (saith  a  learned  man)  fieri  potuit,  ut  toto  hoo  orbe  dccenicretur, 
nuUo  jam  oecumenico  eoncilio  ad  illud  decernendum  congregate,  si  non  a!)  apos- 
tolis  ipsis,  fidem  toto  orbe  promnlgantibiss,  et  cum  fide  banc  regendi  ecclcsias 
formani  constituentibus  factum  sit? 

2  Pauiatim  ver6  (ut  dissensionum  plantaria  evellerentur)  ad  unum  omncm  so- 
licitudinuin  esse  delatam. 

3  Exercit.  ad  Annal.  Eccles.  15,  s.  12. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

planting  churches  with  the  apostles,  and  thence  are  called  in 
scripture  sometimes  fellow-labourers  in  the  Lord,  and  some- 
times evangelists,  and  by  Theodoret  apostles,  but  of  a.  second 
order,)  after,  I  say,  these  were  deceased,  and  the  main  power 
left  in  the  presbyteries,  the  several  presbyters  enjoying  an 
equal  power  among  themselves,  especially  being  many  in  one 
city,  thereby  great  occasion  was  given  to  many  schisms,  partly 
by  the  bandying  of  the  presbyters  one  against  another,  partly 
by  tlie  sidings  of  the  people  with  some  against  the  rest,  partly 
by  the  too  common  use  of  the  power  of  ordinations  in  pres- 
byters, by  which  they  were  more  able  to  increase  their  own 
party,  by  ordaining  those  who  would  join  with  them,  and  by 
this  means  to  perpetuate  schisms  in  the  church;  upon  this, 
when  the  wiser  and  graver  sort  considered  the  abuses  follow- 
ing the  promiscuous  use  of  this  power  of  ordination;  and  withal 
having  in  their  minds  the  excellent  frame  of  the  government 
of  the" church  under  the  apostles,  and  their  deputies,  and  for 
preventing  of  future  schisms  and  divisions  among  themselves, 
they  unanimously  agreed  to  choose  one  out  of  their  number, 
who  was  best  qualified  for  the  management  of  so  great  a 
trust,  and  to  devolve  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  ordination 
and  jurisdiction  on  him;  yet  so  as  that  he  act  nothing  of  im- 
portance, without  the  consent  and  concurrence  of  the  presby- 
ters, who  were  still  to  be  as  the  common  council  to  the  bishop. 
This  I  take  to  be  the  true  and  just  account  of  the  original  of 
episcopacy  in  the  primitive  church  according  to  Jerome; 
which  model  of  government  thus  contrived  and  framed,  sets 
forth  to  us  a  most  lively  character  of  that  great  wisdom  and 
moderation,  which  then  ruled  the  heads  and  hearts  of  the 
primitive  Christians;  and  which,  when  men  have  searched 
and  studied  all  other  ways,  (the  abuses  incident  to  this  govern- 
ment, through  the  corruptions  of  men  and  times  being  re- 
trenched,) will  be  found  the  most  agreeable  to  the  primitive 
form,  both  as  asserting  the  due  interest  of  the  presbyteries,  and 
allowing  the  due  honour  of  episcopacy,  and  by  the  joint  har- 
mony of  both  carrying  on  the  affairs  of  the  church  with  the 
greatest  unity,  concord  and  peace.  Which  form  of  govern- 
ment I  cannot  see  any  possible  reason  can  be  produced  by 
either  party,  why  they  may  not  with  cheerfulness  embrace  it. 
Secondly,  another  evidence  that  Jerome  by  decretum  est, 
«  it  is  or  hath  been  decreed,"  did  not  mean  an  order  of  the 
apostles  themselves,  is  by  the  words  which  follow  the  matter 
of  the  decree,  viz.  Ut  unus  de  presbyteris  electtis  superpone- 
retur  casteris,  "  that  one  elected  from  amongst  the  presbyters, 


308  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

should  be  placed  over  the  rest,"  one  chosen  not  only  out  of, 
but  by  the  presbyters,  should  be  set  above  the  rest;  for  so 
Jerome  must  be  understood;  for  the  apostles  could  not  them- 
selves choose  out  of  all  presbyteries  one  person  to  be  set  above 
the  rest;  and  withal  the  instance  brought  of  the  church  of 
Jilexandria  makes  it  evident  to  be  meant  of  the  choosing  by 
the  presbyters,  and  not  by  the  apostles.  Besides,  did  Jerome 
mean  choosing  by  the  apostles,  he  would  have  given  some 
intimations  of  the  hand  the  apostles  had  in  it:  which  we  see 
not  in  him  the  least  ground  for.  And  as  for  that  pretence, 
that  ecclesise  eonsuetudo  is  apostolica  traditio,  "  the  custom  of 
the  church  is  the  apostolical  tradition,"  I  have  already  made 
it  appear  that  apostolica  traditio  in  Jerome,  is  nothing  else 
but  eonsuetudo  ecclesise,  which  I  shall  now  confirm  by  a  preg- 
nant and  unanswerable  testimony  out  of  Jerome^  himself: 
"  Let  every  province  abound  in  its  own  sense,  and  account  of 
the  ordinances  of  their  ancestors  as  of  apostolical  laws."^ 
Nothing  could  have  been  spoken  more  fully  to  open  to  us 
what  Jerome  means  by  apostolical  traditions,  viz.  the  practice 
of  the  church  in  former  ages,  though  not  coming  from  the 
apostles  themselves.  Thus  we  have  once  more  cleared  Jerome 
and  the  truth  together;  I  only  wish  all  that  are  of  his  judg- 
ment for  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church,  were  of  his  tem- 
per for  the  practice  of  their  own;  and  while  they  own  not 
episcopacy  as  necessary  by  a  divine  right,  yet,  (being  duly 
moderated,  and  joined  with  presbyteries,)  they  may  embrace 
it,  as  not  only  a  lawful,  but  very  useful  constitution  in  the 
church  of  God.  By  which  we  may  see  what  an  excellent 
temper  may  be  found  out,  most  fully  consonant  to  the  primi- 
tive church  for  the  management  of  ordinations,  and  church 
power,  viz.  by  the  presidency  of  the  bishop  and  the  concurrence 
of  the  presbytery.  For  the  top-gallant  of  episcopacy  can  never 
be  so  well  managed  for  the  right  steering  the  ship  of  the 
church,  as  when  it  is  joined  with  the  under  sails  of  a  moderate 
presbytery.  So  much  shall  suffice  to  speak  here  as  to  the  power 
of  ordination,  which  we  have  found  to  be  derived  from  the 
synagogue,  and  the  customs  observed  in  it,  transplanted  into 
the  church. 

§  14.  There  are  yet  some  things  remaining  as  to  ordination, 
wherein  the  church  did  imitate  the  synagogue,  which  will 


'  Hieron.  ep.  20,  ad.Lucinum. 

2  UnaquEEque  provincia  abundet  in  sensu  suo,  et  praecepta  majorum  leges  apos- 
tolicas  arbitrelur. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  309 

admit  of  a  quick  despatch,  as  the  number  of  the  persons, 
which  under  the  synagogue  were  always  to  be  at  least  three. 
This  being  a  fundamental  constitution  among  the  Jews,  as ' 
appears  by  their  writings,  r\w^w2  D'jpi  hd'od,  "  ordination  of 
presbyters  by  laying  on  of  hands  must  be  done  by  three  at 
the  least."^  To  the  same  purpose  Muimo)iicles  jod-'D  pxi, 
rij"-i'?  cjpin  "irn  N^nty  htod  r^vhwi  n^x,  "  They  did  not  ordain 
any  by  imposition  of  hands  into  a  power  of  judicature  with- 
out the  number  of  three. "2  Which  number  Peter  Gallatinus 
and  Postellus  conceive  necessary  to  be  all  ordained  them- 
selves; but  Master  Seldeii^  thinks  it  was  sufficient  if  there 
were  but  one  of  that  number  so  ordained,  who  was  to  be  as 
principal  in  the  action;  whose  opinion  is  favoured  by  Maimo- 
nides,  who  adds  to  the  words  last  cited  out  of  him;  of  which 
three,  one  at  the  least  must  be  ordained  himself  Let  us 
now  see  the  parallel  in  the  church  of  God.  The  first  solemn 
ordination  of  elders  under  the  gospel,  which  some  think  to  be 
set  down  as  a  pattern  for  the  church  to  follow,  is  that  we  read 
of,  ^cts  xiii.  1,  2,  3.  Which  was  performed  by  three;  for  we 
read  in  the  first  verse,  that  there  were  in  the  church  at 
Antioch,  five  prophets  and  teachers,  Barnabas,  Simeon,  Lu- 
cius, Manaen  and  Saul;  of  these  five,  the  Holy  Ghost  said, 
that  two  must  be  separated  for  the  luork  ivhereto  God  had 
called  them,  which  were,  Barnabas  and  Saul;  there  remain 
only  the  other  three,  Si77ieon,  Lucius,  and  Manaen  to  lay 
their  hands  on  them,  and  ordain  them  to  their  work.  Accord- 
ingly those  who  tell  us  that  James  was  ordained  bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  do  mention  the  three  apostles  who  concurred  in 
the  ordaining  of  him.'*  But  most  remarkable  for  this  purpose 
is  the  canon  of  the  Nicene  council,  wherein  this  number  is  set 
down  as  the  regular  number  for  the  ordination  of  bishops, 
without  which  it  was  not  accounted  canonical.  The  words 
are  these:  "  The  ordination  of  a  bishop  should,  if  possible,  be 
performed  by  all  the  bishops  of  the  province,  which  if  it  can- 
not easily  be  done,  either  through  some  urgent  necessity,  or 
the  tediousness  of  the  way,  three  bishops  at  least  must  be 
there  for  the  doing  it,  which  may  be  sufficient  for  the  ordina- 
tion, if  those  that  are  absent  do  express  their  consent,  and  by 
letters  approve  of  the  doing  of  it."*     To  the  same  purpose 

•  Misna  et  Gemar.  tit.  Sanhedr.  c.  1. 

2  Tit.  Sanhed.  cap.  4,  s.  3,  Arcan.  Cath.  Veritat.  1.  4,  cap.  6. 

3  De  Concord,  orbis.  p.  377. 

4  Euseb.  hist.  Eccles.  lib  2,  cap.  ]. 

s  Ew«(rxo7rov  vrpoo-nxti  fxaKi^a  y,Bv  aiao  Ttavrxv,  rcav  £v  th  67rttg;^ttt  xafliftttrSat  si  Je 


310  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

Theodoret  says,  "  The  canons  enjoin  all  the  bishops  of  the 
province  to  be  present  at  the  ordination  of  one:  and  forbid  the 
ordination  of  any  vvithoLit  three  being  present  at  it."^  Thus 
we  see  how  the  constitution  of  the  synagogue  was  exactly 
observed  in  the  church,  as  to  the  number  of  the  persons  con- 
curring to  a  regular  ordination.  Tiie  last  thing  as  to  ordina- 
tion bearing  analogy  to  the  synagogue,  is  the  effect  of  this 
ordination  npon  the  person:  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews, 
to  speak  of  all  that  were  legally  ordained  among  them,  nmiyi, 
jnV  njoty  "  and  the  divine  presence  or  Schekinah  rested  upon 
them,"  which  sometimes  they  called  i^iipn  nn,  Rooach  Huquo- 
dosh,  "the  Holy  Spirit,"  supposed  to  be  in  a  peculiar  manner 
present  after  this  solemn  separation  of  them  from  others  in  the 
world,  and  dedication  of  them  unto  God.  Answerable  to  this 
may  that  of  our  Saviour  be,  when  he  gives  his  apostles  autho- 
rity to  preach  the  gospel,  he  doth  it  in  that  form  of  words,"  Re- 
ceive ye  the  Holy  Ghost,"^  and  then  gives  them  the  power  of 
binding  and  loosing,  usually  conveyed  in  the  Jewish  ordina- 
tions. "  Whose  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  reuiitted;  and  whose  sins 
ye  retain,  they  are  retained."^  So  that  as  under  the  law,  they 
by  their  ordination  received  a  moral  faculty  or  right  to  exer- 
cise that  power  they  were  ordained  to:  so  under  the  gospel, 
all  who  are  ordained  according  to  gospel  rules,  have  a  right, 
authority  and  power  conveyed  thereby  for  the  dispensing  of 
the  word  and  sacraments.  Which  right  and  power  nmst  not 
be  conceived  to  be  an  internal  indelible  character,  as  the 
papists  groundlessly  conceive,  but  a  moral  legal  right,  accord- 
ing to  the  laws  of  Christ,  because  the  persons  ordaining  do 
not  act  in  it  in  a  natural,  but  a  moral  capacity,  and  so  the 
effect  must  be  moral  and  not  physical,  which  they  must  sup- 
pose it  to  be,  who  make  it  a  character,  and  that  indelible. 
Thus  much  may  serve  to  clear  how  ordination  in  all  its  cir- 
cmnstances  was  derived  from  the  Jewish  synagogue. 

§  15.  The  other  thing  remaining  to  be  spoken  to,  as  to  the 
correspondence  of  the  church  with  the  synagogue  in  its  con- 
stitution is,  what  order  the  apostles  did  settle  in  the  several 
churches  of  their  plantation  for  the  ruling  and  ordering  the 


S'u3-;CEjEf  £{»!  TO  ToiouTov,  11  Jitt  Y.a.ta.ntnymc'ts.t  avayKnV,  n  ha  /wnxof  ohv,  l^  aTravro?  t^eij 
ETTi  TO  auTO  ffCVayo[A.evov;,  av/jt-^l^fajv  yivoy,tV(ev  xat  raiv  a'travrajv  xai  cvVTidefA-lvaiv  ha 
y^afA/xarcev,  tote  Ttjv  ^SipoTovtav  Troieia^at. — Can,  4.     Hist.  I'Jccles.  lib.  5,  c.  23. 

'  KavovEj  TravTflf  (rvynu-'Kii^tti  t»5  Ewap^iaf  touj  EWio-KOTrouj  mXivovcri,  Kai  av  waXiv 
S(;^a  TStcmv  ims-x-oTTtuv  itiiTX.o'mu  ^upo-rifnav  cLwayociuov^i  yivei^Qat. — V.  Justell.  not.  in 
Canon.  Univers8B  Eccles.  p.  140. 

2  John  XX.  21  3  John  xx.  29. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  311 

affairs  of  them.  Before  I  come  to  speak  so  much  to  it  as 
will  be  pertinent  to  our  present  purpose  and  design,  we  may- 
take  notice  of  the  same  name  for  church  rulers  under  the 
gospel,  which  there  was  under  the  synagogue,  viz,  that  of 
presbyters.  The  name  presbyter,  as  the  Hebrew  |pi,  "an 
eider,"  though  it  originally  imported  age,  yet  by  way  of  con- 
notation it  hath  been  looked  on  as  a  name  both  of  dignity 
and  power.  Because  wisdom  was  supposed  to  dwell  with  a 
multitude  of  years;  therefore  persons  of  age  and  experience 
were  commonly  chosen  to  places  of  honour  and  trust,  and 
thence  the  name  importing  age  doth  likewise  carry  dignity 
along  with  it.  Thence  we  read  in  the  time  of  Moses  how 
often  the  elders  were  gathered  together.^  Thence  Eliezer  is 
called  in"3  [pf,  Gen.  xxiv.  .2,  which  the  Greek  renders  ©ptogurf^os 
f»j5  otxtaj,  the  seignior  domo,  "the  chief  officer  in  his  house;" 
and  so  we  read  Gen.  1.  6,  D"*»i'0  ]nx  'Jpi,  "the  elders  of  the  land 
of  Egypt."  So  the  elders  of  Midian,  the  elders  of  Israel,  the 
elders  of  the  cities;  so  among  the  Greeks  yi^ovaia,  "or  assembly 
of  elders,"  for  their  council  of  state;  and  among  the  Latins 
senatus,  and  our  Saxon  aldermen,  in  all  importing  both  age 
and  honour  and  power  together.  But  among  the  Jews,  in 
the  times  of  the  apostles,  it  is  most  evident  that  the  name 
cjpsoSiJT'fpot,  imported  not  only  dignity  but  power;  the  presby- 
ters among  the  Jews,  having  a  power  both  of  judging  and 
teaching  given  them  by  their  semicha  or  "ordination."  Now 
under  the  gospel  the  apostles  retaining  the  name  and  the 
manner  of  ordination,  but  not  conferring  that  judiciary  power 
by  it,  which  was  in  use  among  the  Jews,  to  show  the  differ- 
ence between  the  law  and  the  gospel,  it  was  requisite  some 
other  name  should  be  given  to  the  governors  of  the  churc'i, 
which  should  qualify  the  importance  of  the  word  presbyters 
to  a  sense  proper  to  a  gospel  state;  which  was  the  original  of 
giving  the  name  iTtiexoTtov,  "  overseers"  to  the  governors  of  the 
church  under  the  gospel:  a  name  importing  duty  more  than 
honour,  and  not  a  title  above  presbyter,  but  rather  used  by 
way  of  diminution  and  qualification  of  the  power  implied  in 
the  name  of  presbyter.  Therefore  to  show  what  kind  of 
power  and  duty  the  name  presbyter  imported  in  the  church, 
the  office  conveyed  by  that  name  is  called  fTH-ixoigri,  "'  a  visita- 
tion, the  office  of  superintendence,"  and  presbyters  are  said 
iTii-sxoTiivv,  "to  oversee,  inspect,"  1  Pet.  v.  2,  where  it  is  op- 
posed to  that  xataxviiiviiv  *tot)  xXrj^ujv,   "  lording  it   over   the 

>  Exod.  iii.  16,  18;  iv.  29;  xii.  21;  xvii.  5;  xviii.  12,  &c. 


312  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

people,"  as  was  the  custom  of  the  presbyters  among  the 
Jews.  So  that  if  we  determine  things  by  importance  of  words 
and  things  signified  by  them,  the  power  of  ordination  was 
proper  to  the  name  mpsa^vtspoi  and  not  srttoxoi^ou  because  the 
former  name  did  not  then  import  that  power.  We  come 
therefore  from  the  names  to  the  things  then  impUed  by  them; 
and  the  offices  estabUshed  by  the  apostles  for  the  ruUng  of 
churches.  But  my  design  being  not  to  dispute  the  argu- 
ments of  either  party,  (viz.  those  who  conceive  the  apostles 
settled  the  government  of  the  chnrch  in  an  absolute  parity; 
or  else  by  superiority  and  subordination  among  the  settled 
officers  of  the  church,)  but  to  lay  down  those  principles  which 
may  equally  concern  both,  in  order  to  accommodation:  I  find 
not  myself  at  present  concerned  to  debate  what  is  brought  on 
either  side  for  the  maintaining  their  particular  opinion  any 
further  than  thereby  the  apostles'  intentions  are  brought  to 
have  been  to  bind  all  future  churches  to  observe  that  indi- 
vidual form  they  conceived  was  in  practice  then. 

All  that  I  have  to  say  then,  concerning  the  course  taken  by 
the  apostles  in  settling  the  government  of  the  churches,  (under 
which  will  be  contained  the  full  resolution  of  what  I  promised, 
as  to  the  correspondency  to  the  synagogue  in  the  government 
of  churches,)  lies  in  these  three  propositions,  which  I  now  shall 
endeavour  to  clear,  viz:  that  neither  can  we  have  that  certainty 
of  apostolical  practice  which  is  necessary  to  constitute  a  divine 
right;  nor,  secondly,  is  it  probable  that  the  apostles  did  tie 
themselves  up  to  any  one  fixed  course  in  modelling  churches; 
nor,  thirdly,  if  they  did,  doth  it  necessarily  follow  that  we  must 
observe  the  same.  If  these  three  considerations  be  fully 
cleared,  we  may  see  to  how  little  purpose  it  is  to  dispute  the 
significancy  and  importance  of  words  and  names  as  used  in 
scripture,  which  hitherto  the  main  quarrel  hath  been  about.  I 
therefore  begin  with  the  first  of  these,  that  we  cannot  arrive 
to  such  an  absolute  certainty  what  course  the  apostles  took  in 
governing  churches  as  to  infer  from  thence  the  only  divine  right 
of  that  one  form  which  the  several  parties  imagine  comes  the 
nearest  to  it.  This  I  shall  make  out  from  these  following  ar- 
guments: first,  from  the  equivalency  of  the  names,  and  the 
doubtfulness  of  their  signification  from  which  the  form  of 
government  used  in  the  New  Testament  should  be  determined. 
That  the  form  of  government  must  be  derived  from  the  im- 
portance of  the  names  of  bishop  and  presbyter,  is  hotly  pleaded 
on  both  sides.  But  if  there  can  be  no  certain  way  found  out 
whereby  to  come  to  a  determination  of  what  the  certain  sense 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  313 

of  those  names  is  in  scripture,  we  are  never  like  to  come  to 
any  certain  knowledge  of  the  things  signified  by  those  names. 
Now  there  is  a  fourfold  equivalency  of  the  names  bishop  and 
presbyter  taken  notice  of:  1.  that  both  should  signify  the  same 
thing,  viz.  a  presbyter,  in  the  modern  notion,  i.  e.  one  acting 
in  a  parity  with  others  for  the  government  of  the  church.* 
And  this  sense  is  evidently  asserted  by  Theodoret:  "  The 
apostle"  (Acts  xx.  28;  Philip,  i.  1;  Titus  i.  5;  1  Tim.  iii.  1,)^ 
"  doth  by  bishops  mean  nothing  else  but  presbyters;  otherwise 
it  were  impossible  for  more  bishops  to  govern  one  city."^  2. 
That  both  of  them  should  signify  promiscuously  sometimes  a 
bishop,  and  sometimes  a  presbyter:  so  Chrysostom,  and  after 
him  Oecumenius  and  Theophylact  in  Phil.  i.  "Since  then 
the  custom,"  especially  mentioned,  '•  in  the  New  Testament 
of  calling  many  bishops  elders,  and  elders  bishops,  is  unknown; 
but  to  this  end  we  may  refer  to  the  epistles  to  Titus,  to  the 
Philippians,  and  to  the  first  to  Timothy."^  Where  they  as- 
sert the  community  and  promiscuous  use  of  the  names  in 
scripture,  so  that  a  bishop  is  sometimes  called  a  presbyter, 
and  a  presbyter  sometimes  called  a  bishop.  3.  That  the  name 
bishop  always  imports  a  singular  bishop;  but  the  name  pres- 
byter is  taken  promiscuously  both  for  bishop  and  presbyter. 
4.  That  both  the  names  bishop  and  presbyter  do  import  only 
one  thing  in  scripture,  viz.  the  office  of  a  singular  bishop  in 
every  church;  which  sense,  though  a  stranger  to  antiquity,  is 
above  all  others  embraced  by  a  late  very  learned  man,  who 
hath  endeavoured  by  set  discourses  to  reconcile  all  the  places 
of  scripture  where  the  names  occur  to  this  sense;  but  with 
what  success  it  is  not  here  a  place  to  examine.  By  this  va- 
riety of  interpretation  of  the  equivalency  of  the  names  of 
bishop  and  presbyter,  we  may  see  how  far  the  argument  from 
the  promiscuous  use  of  the  names  is  from  the  controversy  in 
hand;  unless  some  evident  arguments  be  withal  brought,  that 
the  equivalency  of  the  words  cannot  possibly  be  meant  in  any 
other  sense  than  that  which  they  contend  for.  Equivocal 
words  can  never  of  themselves  determine  what  sense  they  are 

•  Dissert,  de  jure  Epis.  3,  c.  6.     Vindicat.  cap.  ii.  s.  1. 
2  Theodoret,  in  1  Tim.  iii.  1. 

'  EvwicTjtoTrouj  Touj  wjea-0yT£gouf  xaXej  aXXaif  te  oySs  oiov  ts  hv  ttoXXou?  eww-xowoy; 
(Aiay  TToXtv  "rtoifxaimv. 

*  ETrttTKOTtovi  TOuq  •KgoitT^iv'Ti^ovq  xaXEt,  TOTE  yaj  iKtivanovv  TOi?  (ivo/a.a(ri,  and  in  Acts 
XX.  28;  E7rE(J>)  tou;  woXXouj  Xav9avEi  h  iruvn&Eia  fjiaXtfct  rn?  xaivwf  ita9iix.ni;  tow?  E^Tria-- 
KOTTOvf  'TT^iaSvre^out   o)iofxat^ov(ra,  Kat    touj    Tr^BoSuTt^ovi  EWio-xowoyf,   (rnfJUiaiTeov  rouro 

SVTlvdsV,    **t    £V    TDf    WfOf    TlTOV    EWifoXUf,   ETt  Js  Xa«   WfOf  OlXlWWBO-IOUJ,  Kai  SK    TD?    W{0{ 
T«/t«0&£V  TTf  aiTIl?. 

40 


314  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

to  be  taken  in,  because  they  are  equivocal,  and  so  admit  of 
different  senses.  And  he  that  from  the  use  of  an  equivocal 
word  would  infer  the  necessity  only  of  one  sense,  when  the 
word  is  common  to  many,  unless  some  other  argument  be 
brought  enforcing  that  necessity,  will  be  so  far  from  persuad- 
ing others  to  the  same  belief,  that  he  will  only  betray  the 
weakness  and  shortness  of  his  own  reason.  When  Jliignstus 
would  be  called  only  Princeps  Senatus,^  could  any  one  infer 
from  thence,  that  certainly  he  was  only  the  rt^oatffwj,  "  chief  or 
president,"  in  the  senate,  or  else  that  he  had  superiority  of 
power  over  the  senate,  when  that  title  might  be  indifferent  to 
either  of  those  senses?  All  that  can  be  inferred  from  the  pro- 
miscuous sense  of  the  words,  is,  that  they  may  be  under- 
stood only  in  this  sense;  but  it  must  be  proved  that  they  can 
be  understood  in  no  other  before  any  one  particular  form 
of  government  as  necessary  can  be  inferred  from  the  use  of 
them. 

If  notwithstanding  the  promiscuous  use  of  the  name  bishop 
and  presbyter,  either  that  presbyter  may  mean  a  bishop,  or 
that  bishop  may  mean  a  presbyter,  or  be  sometimes  used  for 
one,  sometimes  for  the  other;  what  ground  can  there  be  laid 
in  the  equivalency  of  the  words,  which  can  infer  the  only  di- 
vine right  of  the  form  of  government  couched  in  any  one  of 
these  senses?  So  likewise,  it  is  in  the  titles  of  angels  of  the 
churches;  if  the  name  angel  imports  no  incongruity,  though 
taken  only  for  the  "im^  n''7iy,  "the  public  minister,"  in  the 
Jewish  synagogue,  called  "  the  angel  of  the  congregation," 
what  power  can  be  inferred  from  thence,  any  more  than  such 
an  officer  was  invested  with?  Again,  if  the  Tt^otfco?  or  president 
of  the  assembly  of  presbyters,  might  be  so  called:  what  supe- 
riority can  be  deduced  thence,  any  more  than  such  a  one 
enjoys?  Nay,  if  in  the  prophetical  style,  an  unity  may  be  set 
down  by  way  of  representation  of  a  multitude:  what  evidence 
can  be  brought  from  the  name,  that  by  it  some  one  particular 
person  must  be  understood?  And  by  this  means  Timothy 
may  avoid  being  charged  with  leaving  his  first  love^  which 
he  must  of  necessity  be,  by  those  that  make  him  the  angel  of 
the  church  of  Ephesus  at  the  time  of  writing  these  epistles. 
Neither  is  this  any  ways  solved  by  the  answer  given,  that  the 
name  angel  is  representative  of  the  whole  church,  and  so 
there  is  no  necessity,  the  angel  should  be  personally  guilty  of 
it.     For  ^r*^,  it  seems  strange  that  the  whole  diffusive  body 

'  Tacitus,  hist.  lib.  i.  2  Rev.  ii.  4. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  315 

of  the  church  should  be  charged  with  a  crime  by  the  name  of 
the  angel,  and  he  that  is  particularly  meant  by  that  name 
should  be  free  from  it.  As  if  a  prince  should  charge  the  mayor 
of  a  corporation  as  guilty  of  rebellion,  and  by  it  should  only 
mean  that  the  corporation  was  guilty,  but  the  mayor  was  in- 
nocent himself.  Secondly,  If  many  things  in  the  epistles  be 
directed  to  the  angel,  but  yet  so  as  to  concern  the  whole  body, 
then  of  necessity  the  angel  must  be  taken  as  represenative  of 
the  body;  and  then,  why  may  not  the  word  angel  be  taken 
only  by  way  of  representation  of  the  body  itself,  either  of  the 
whole  church,  or  which  is  far  more  probable,  of  the  concessus 
or  order  of  presbyters  in  that  church?  We  see  what  miserably 
unconcluding  arguments  those  are,  which  are  brought  for  any 
form  of  government  from  metaphorical  or  ambiguous  expres- 
sions, or  names  promiscuously  used,  which  may  be  interpreted 
in  different  senses.  What  certainty  then  can  any  rational  man 
find,  what  the  form  of  government  was  in  the  primitive  times, 
when  only  those  arguments  are  used  which  may  be  equally 
accommodated  to  different  forms?  And  without  such  a  cer- 
tainly,  with  what  confidence  can  men  speak  of  a  divine  right 
of  any  one  particular  form?  Secondly,  The  uncertainty  of  the 
primitive  form  is  argued,  from  the  places  most  in  controversy 
about  the  form  of  government;  because  that  without  any  ap- 
parent incongruity  they  may  be  understood  of  either  of  the 
different  forms,  which  I  shall  make  out  by  going  through  the 
several  places.  The  controversy  then  oil  foot  is  this,  (as  it  is 
of  late  stated,)  whether  the  churches  in  the  primitive  times 
were  governed  by  a  bishop  only  and  deacons,  or  by  a  college 
of  presbyters  acting  in  a  parity  of  power?  The  places  insisted 
on,  on  both  sides,  are  these,  Jicts  xi.  30,  Acts  xiv.  23,  Acts 
xxviii.  17,  1  Tim.  iii.  1,  Titus  i.  5.  The  thing  in  controversy, 
is,  whether  bishops  with  deacons,  or  presbyters  in  a  parity  of 
power,  are  understood  in  these  places?  I  begin  then  in  order 
with  Acts  xi.  30.  The  first  place  wherein  the  name  7te,i(i?vts^oi, 
occurs,  as  applied  to  the  officers  of  the  Christian  church.  Those 
that  are  for  a  college  of  presbyters,  understand  by  these  elders, 
those  of  the  church  oi  Jerusalem,  who  did  govern  the  affairs 
of  that  church:  those  that  are  for  a  solitary  episcopacy,  by 
these  elders  understand  not  the  local  elders  of  Jerusalem,  but 
the  several  bishops  of  the  churches  of  Judea. 

Let  us  now  see  whether  there  be  any  evidence  from  the 
place  to  determine  which  of  these  two  must  necessarily  be 
understood.  There  is  nothing  at  all  mentioned  in  the  place, 
but  only  that  "  upon  the  occasion  of  the  famine,  they  sent 


316  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

relief  to  the  brethren  of  Judea,  and  sent  it  to  the  elders  by  the 
hands  oi  Barnabas  and  Paulf  which  might  cither  be  to  the 
elders  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  to  be  distributed  to  the 
several  churches  of  Judea,  or  else  to  the  several  pastors  of 
those  churches,  either  collectively  as  met  together  at  Jerusalem 
to  receive  this  contribution,  or  distributively  as  they  were  in 
their  several  churches.  The  relief  might  be  sent  to  all  the 
brethren  of  Judea,  and  yet  either  be  conveyed  to  the  particular 
elders  of  Jerusalem  to  send  it  abroad,  or  to  the  several  elders 
of  the  churches  within  the  circuit  of  Judea.  But  other  places 
are  brought  by  both  parties  for  their  particular  sense  in  this, 
as  Acts  XV.  6;  here  indeed  mention  is  made  of  the  apostles 
and  elders  together  at  Jerusalem,  but  nothing  expressed 
whereby  we  may  know  whether  the  fixed  elders  of  that 
church,  or  else  the  elders  of  all  the  churches  of  Judea  assem- 
bled upon  this  solemn  occasion  of  the  council  of  the  apostles 
there.  So  Acts  xxi.  11,  when  Faul  went  in  to  James,  it  is 
said,  that  "all  the  elders  were  present."  No  more  certainty 
here  neither;  for,  either  they  might  be  the  fixed  officers  of  that 
church,  meeting  with  James  upon  PauVs  coming;  or  else 
they  might  be  the  elders  of  the  several  churches  of  Judea  met 
together,  not  to  take  account  of  PauVs  ministry,  (as  some  im- 
probably conjecture,)  but  assembled  together  there  at  the  feast 
of  Pentecost,  at  which  Paul  came  to  Jerusalem,  which  is 
more  probable  upon  the  account  of  what  we  read,  verse  20, 
of  the  "many  thousand  believing  Jews  then  at  Jerusalem, 
who  were  zealous  of  the  law:"  who  in  all  probability  were 
the  believing  Jews  of  Judea,  who  did  yet  observe  the  annual 
festivals  of  Jerusalem,  and  so  most  likely  their  several  elders 
might  go  up  together  with  them,  and  there  be  with  James  at 
PauVs  coming  in  to  him.  No  certainty  then  of  the  church  of 
Jerusalem  how  that  was  governed;  whether  by  apostles  them- 
selves, or  other  unfixed  elders,  or  only  by  James,  who  exer- 
cised his  apostleship  most  there,  and  thence  afterwards  called 
the  bishop  of  Jerusalem.  We  proceed  therefore  to  the  govern- 
ment of  other  churches;  and  the  next  place  is,  Acts  xiv.  23, 
"and  when  they  had  ordained  them  elders  in  every  church." 
Here  some  plead  for  a  plurality  of  elders  as  fixed  in  every 
church;  but  it  is  most  evident,  that  the  words  hold  true  if  there 
was  but  one  in  each  church.  For  xa^t  ixx%r;siav  here,  and  xai-o 
iio-Kiv,  Titus  i.  5,  (for  both  places  will  admit  of  the  same 
answer,)  doth  signify  no  more  than  oppidatim,  "city  by  city," 
or  ecclesiatim,  "church  by  church,  or  by  churches,"  as  xafo 
PaSjitoj/,  gradatim,  "by  degrees;"  xat  owSi^a,  viritim,  "man  by 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  317 

man;"  xaf a  i^c^oi,  particulatim,  "  particle  by  particle,  or  by 
particles;"  xtxta  xay.7iv,  vicatim,  "village  by  village."  No  more 
then  is  imported  than  that  elders  were  ordained,  city  by  city, 
or  church  by  church,  as  we  would  render  it,  and  thereby 
nothing  is  expressed,  but  that  no  church  wanted  an  elder,  but 
not  that  every  church  had  more  elders  than  one.  But  the 
place  most  controverted  is,  »dcts  xx.  17,  "and  from  Miletus, 
Paul  sent  to  Ephesus,  and  called  the  elders  of  the  church." 
Those  that  say,  these  elders  were  those  only  of  the  church  of 
Ephesus,  seem  to  be  most  favoured  by  the  phrase  ttn  ^xxxi^siaj, 
as  seeming  to  apply  to  that  particular  church  of  Ephesus, 
and  by  the  Syriac  version,  which  renders  it,  venire  fecit  pres- 
byteros  ecclesise  Ephesi,  "  he  caused  the  elders  of  the  church 
of  Ephesus  to  be  present;"  to  the  same  purpose  likewise 
Hierom  understands  it.  On  the  contrary  those  that  say,  that 
these  elders  were  those  of  the  several  churches  of  Asia,  are 
favoured  by  verse  18;  "that  from  the  first  day  he  came  into 
Asia,  he  had  been  with  them  at  all  seasons."  Now  Paul  did 
not  remain  all  the  time  at  Ephesus,  as  appears  by  jicts  xix. 
10,  22,  26,  where  he  is  said  to  preach  the  word  abroad  in 
Asia,  and  so  in  probability  churches  were  planted,  and  rulers 
settled  in  them;  and  that  these  were  at  this  time  called  to 
Miletus  by  Paul,  is  the  express  affirmation  of  Irensetis, '"  For 
the  bishops  and  elders  who  were  from  Ephesus,  and  the  other 
cities,  being  called  together  at  Miletus,  since  he  himself  has- 
tened to  spend  the  Pentecost  at  Jerusalem."^  Here  is  nothing 
then  either  in  the  text  or  antiquity,  that  doth  absolutely 
determine  whence  these  elders  came;  but  there  may  be  a 
probability  on  either  side;  and  so  no  certainty  or  necessity  of 
understanding  it  either  way.  And  so  for  the  other  places  in 
Timothy  and  Titus,  it  is  certain  the  care  of  those  persons  did 
extend  to  many  places,  and  therefore  the  elders  or  bishops 
made  by  them,  are  not  necessarily  to  be  understood  of  a  plu- 
rality of  elders  in  one  place.  Thus  we  see,  that  there  is  no 
incongruity  in  applying  either  of  these  two  forms  to  the  sense 
of  the  places  in  question.  I  dispute  not  which  is  the  true,  or 
at  least  more  probable  sense,  but  that  we  can  find  nothing  in 
the  several  places  which  doth  necessarily  determine,  how 
they  are  to  be  understood  as  to  one  particular  form  of 
government,  which  is  the  thing  I  now  aim  at  proving.     And 


1  In  Mileto  enim  convocatis  episcopis  et  presbyteris  qui  crant  ab  EpTieso  et  h. 
reliquis  proximis  civitatibus,  quoniam  ipse  festinavit  Hierosolymis  Pentecostem 
agere. — Advers.  hapres.  I.  1,  c.  H. 


318  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

if  neither  form  be  repugnant  to  the  sense  of  these  places,  how 
can  any  one  be  necessarily  inferred  from  them?  As  if  the 
several  motions  and  phenomena  of  the  heavens,  may  be  with 
equal  probability  explained  according  to  the  Ptolemaic  or 
Copernican  hypothesis,  viz.  about  the  rest  or  motion  of  the 
earth;  then  it  necessarily  follows,  that  from  those  phenomena 
no  argument  can  be  drawn  evincing  the  necessity  of  the  one 
hypothesis,  and  overturning  the  probability  of  the  other.  If 
that  great  wonder  of  nature,  the  flux  and  reflux  of  the  sea, 
might  with  equal  congruity  be  solved  according  to  the  different 
opinions,  of  its  being  caused  by  subterraneous  fires,  or  from 
the  motion  of  the  moon,  or  the  depression  of  the  lunar  vortex, 
or,  (which  to  me  is  far  the  most  probable,)  by  a  motion  of  con- 
sent of  the  sea  with  all  the  other  great  bodies  of  the  world; 
we  should  find  no  necessity  at  all  of  entertaining  one  opinion 
above  another,  but  to  look  upon  all  as  probable,  and  none  as 
certain.  So  likewise  for  the  composition  and  motion  of  all 
natural  bodies,  the  several  hypotheses  of  the  old  and  new  phi- 
losophy,'\m^\Y'm^  no  apparent  incongruity  to  nature,  do  make 
it  appear  that  all  or  any  of  them,  may  be  embraced  as  inge- 
nious romances  in  philosophy,  (as  they  are  no  more,)  but  that 
none  of  them  are  the  certain  truth;  or  c^n  be  made  appear 
so  to  be  to  the  minds  of  men.  So  it  is  in  controversies  in 
theology,  if  the  matter  propounded  to  be  believed,  may  as  to 
the  truth  and  substance  of  it  be  equally  believed  under  dif- 
ferent ways  of  explication,  then  there  is  no  necessity  as  to  the 
believing  the  truth  of  the  thing,  to  believe  it  under  such  an 
explication  of  it,  more  than  under  another.  As  for  instance, 
in  the  case  of  Christ's  descent  ai?  'dbov,  "into  hades,"  if  I  may 
truly  believe  that  Christ  did  descend  st.^  aSov,  whether  by  that 
we  understand  the  state  of  the  dead,  or  a  local  descent  to  hell,^ 
then  there  is  no  necessity  in  order  to  the  belief  of  the  substance 
of  that  article  of  the  ancient  creed,  (called  the  apostles',)  under 
that  restriction  of  a  local  descent.  By  this  time  I  suppose  it  is 
clear,  that  if  these  places  of  scripture  may  be  understood  in 
these  two  different  senses  of  the  word  elders,  viz.  either  taken 


'  Some,  by  the  Paradise  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  (Luke  xxiii.  43,) 
and  by  Hades,  understand  the  two  intermediate  states,  tlie  former  for  the  happy 
dead,  the  other  for  the  miserable,  prior  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  Other- 
wise how  shall  Rev.  xx.  14,  be  understood?  o  ^avarog  xai  6  aS'd?  efxi&no-av  iis  t»v 
Xi/!*vnv  Toy  wugof;  "  and  death,"  (all  his  powers  and  unredeemed  consequences  in 
man,)  "and  Hades  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire."  Surely  not,  hell  was  cast 
into  the  lake  ofjire,  according  lo  the  common  version,  for  that  would  be  the  same 
thing-  as  to  say,  a  lake  of  fire  was  cast  into  a  lake  of  fire." — Am,  Ed. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  319 

collectively  in  one  city,  or  distributively  in  many,  then  there 
is  no  certainty  which  of  these  two  senses  must  be  embraced, 
and  so  the  form  of  church  government,  which  must  be  thence 
derived,  is  left  still  at  as  great  uncertainty  as  ever,  notwith- 
standing these  places  of  scripture  brought  to  demonstrate  it, 
ortfg  sSn  Sftlat,  "  which  it  was  incumbent  on  them  to  show." 

§  16.  Thirdly,  The  uncertainty  of  the  primitive  form  of  go- 
vernment will  be  made  appear  from  the  defectiveness,  ambi- 
guity, partiality  and  repugnancy  of  the  records  of  the  succeed- 
ing ages,  which  should  inform  us  what  apostolical  practice  was. 
When  men  are  by  the  force  of  the  former  arguments  driven 
off  from  scripture,  then  they  presently  run  to  take  sanctuary 
in  the  records  of  succeeding  ages  to  the  apostles.  Thus  Esthis, 
no  mean  schoolman,  handling  this  very  question  of  the  differ- 
ence of  bishops  and  presbyters,  very  fairly  quits  the  scriptures, 
and  betakes  himself  to  other  weapons.  "But  that  bishops  by 
a  divine  right  are  superior  to  presbyters,  although  not  so  clear 
from  the  scriptures,  nevertheless  can,  from  other  writings,  be 
sufficiently  proved. "^  Ingenuously  said,  however;  but  all 
the  difficulty  is,  how  di  jus  divinitm  should  be  proved  when 
men  leave  the  scriptures,  which  makes  others  so  loth  to  leave 
this  hold;  although  they  do  it  in  effect,  when  they  call  in  the 
help  of  succeeding  ages  to  make  the  scripture  speak  plain  for 
them.  We  follow  therefore  the  scent  of  the  game  into  this  wood 
of  antiquity,  wherein  it  will  be  easier  to  lose  ourselves  than  to 
find  that  which  we  are  upon  the  pursuit  of,  a  jus  divinum, 
of  any  one  particular  form  of  government.  I  handle  now 
only  the  testimony  of  antiquity,  (for  the  practice  of  it  will  call 
for  a  particular  discourse  afterwards,)  and  herein  I  shall  en- 
deavour to  show  the  incompetency  of  this  testimony,  as  to  the 
showing  what  certain  form  of  church  government  was  prac- 
tised by  the  Apostles ;  for  that,  I  shall  make  use  of  this  four- 
fold argument;  from  the  defectiveness  of  this  testimony,  from 
the  ambiguity  of  it,  from  the  partiality  of  it,  and  from  the  re- 
pugnancy of  it  to  itself.  First,  then,  for  the  defectiveness  of 
the  testimony  of  antiquity,  in  reference  to  the  showing  what 
certain  form  the  apostles  observed  in  settling  the  government 
of  churches;  a  threefold  defectiveness  I  observe  in  it,  as  to 
places,  as  to  times,  as  to  persons.  First,  defectiveness  as  to 
places;  for  him  that  would  be  satisfied  what  course  the  apos- 

'  Q.uod  autem  jure  divino  sint  Episcopi  Presbyteris  superiores,  et  si  non  ita 
clarum  est  e  sacris  Uteris,  aliunde  tamen  satis  efBcaciter  probari  potest. — In 
Sentent.  lib.  iv.  dist.  4,  sect.  25. 


330  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

ties  took  for  governing  churches,  it  would  be  very  requisite 
to  observe  the  uniformity  of  the  apostles'  practice  in  all 
churches  of  their  plantation.  And  if  but  one  place  varied,  it 
were  enough  to  overthrow  the  necessity  of  any  one  form  of 
government,  because  thereby  it  would  be  evident,  that  they 
observed  no  certain  or  constant  course,  nor  did  they  look  upon 
themselves  as  obliged  so  to  do.  Now  the  ground  of  the  ne- 
cessity of  such  an  universal  testimony  as  to  places,  is  this:  we 
have  already  made  it  appear,  that  there  is  no  law  of  Christ 
absolutely  commanding  one  form,  and  forbidding  all  others. 
We  have  no  way  then  left  to  know,  whether  the  apostles  did 
look  upon  themselves  as  bound  to  settle  one  form,  but  by  their 
practice;  this  practice  must  be  certain  and  uniform  in  them; 
this  uniformity  must  be  made  known  to  us  by  some  unques- 
tionable way:  the  scriptures  are  very  silent  in  it,  mention- 
ing very  little  more  than  Paul's  practice,  nor  that  fully  and 
clearly;  therefore  we  must  gather  it  from  antiquity,  and  the 
records  of  following  ages;  if  these  now  fall  short  of  our  ex- 
pectation, &,nd  cannot  give  us  an  account  of  what  was  done 
by  the  apostles  in  their  several  churches  planted  by  them,  how 
is  it  possible  we  should  attain  any  certainty  of  what  the  apos- 
tles' practice  was?  Now  that  antiquity  is  so  defective  as  to 
places,  will  appear  from  the  general  silence  as  to  the  churches 
planted  by  many  of  the  apostles.  Granting  the  truth  of  what 
Eusebius  tells  us,  that  Thomas  went  into  Parthia,  Jlndreiu 
into  Scythia,  John  into  the  less  Asia,  Peter  to  the  Jews  in 
Pontus,  Galatia,  Bithynia,  Cappadocia,  Asia;^  besides  what 
we  read  in  scripture  of  Paul,  what  a  pitiful  short  account 
have  we  here  given  of  all  the  apostles'  travels,  and  their 
several  fellow-labourers!  And  for  all  these,  little  or  nothing 
spoke  of  the  way  they  took  in  settling  the  churches  by  them 
planted.  Who  is  it  will  undertake  to  tell  us  what  course 
Jindreio  took  in  Scythia,  in  governing  churches?  If  we  be- 
lieve the  records  of  after  ages,  there  was  but  one  bishop,  viz. 
of  Tomis,  for  the  whole  country;  how  different  is  this  from 
the  pretended  course  of  Paul,  setting  up  a  single  bishop  in 
every  city?  Where  do  we  read  of  the  presbyteries  settled  by 
Thomas  in  Parthia  or  the  Indies?  what  course  Philip,  Bar- 
tholom,ew,  Matthew,  Simon  Zelotes,  Matthias  took.  Might 
not  they,  for  anything  we  know,  settle  another  kind  of  go- 
vernment from  what  we  read  Paul,  Peter,  or  John  did, 
unless  we  had  some  evidence  that  they  were  all  bound  to 

>  Hist.  Eccles.  lib.  iii.  c.  1. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  321 

observe  the  same?  Nay,  what  evidence  have  we  what  course 
Peter  took  in  the  churches  of  the  circumcision?  Whether  he 
left  them  to  their  synagogue  way,  or  altered  it,  and  how  or 
wherein?  These  things  should  be  made  appear,  to  give 
men  a  certainty  of  the  way  and  course  the  apostles  did  ob- 
serve in  the  settling  churches  by  them  planted.  But  instead 
of  this,  we  have  a  general  silence  in  antiquity,  and  nothing 
but  the  forgeries  of  latter  ages  to  supply  the  vacuity:  whereby 
they  filled  up  empty  places,  as  Plutarch  expresseth  it,^  as 
geographers  do  maps,  with  some  fabulous  creatures  of  their 
own  invention.  Here  is  work  now  for  a  Nicepherus  Callis- 
thiis,  a  Simeon  Metaphrastes,  the  very  Jacobus  de  Voragine 
of  the  Greek  church,  (as  one  well  calls  him,)  those  historical 
tinkers,  that  think  to  mend  a  hole  where  they  find  it,  and 
make  three  instead  of  it.  This  is  the  first  defect  in  antiquity 
as  to  places.  The  second  is  as  observable  as  to  times;  and 
what  is  most  considerable:  antiquity  is  most  defective  where 
it  is  most  useful,  viz.  in  the  time  immediately  after  the  apos- 
tles, which  must  have  been  most  helpful  to  us  in  this  inquiry. 
For,  who  dare  with  confidence  believe  the  conjectures  of  Eu- 
sebius  at  three  hundred  years  distance  from  apostolical  times, 
when  he  hath  no  other  testimony  to  vouch,  but  the  hypo- 
theses of  an  uncertain  Clement,  (certainly  not  he  of  Alexan- 
dria, liJos.  Scaliger  may  be  credited,)  and  the  commentaries 
of  Hegesipjnis,  whose  relations  and  authority  are  as  ques- 
tionable as  many  of  the  reports  of  Eusebius  himself  are  in 
reference  to  those  elder  times:  for  which  I  need  no  other  testi- 
mony but  Eusebius  in  a  place  enough  of  itself  to  blast  the 
whole  credit  of  antiquity,  as  to  the  matter  now  in  debate. 
For  speaking  of  Paul  and  Peter,  and  the  churches  by  them 
planted,  and  coming  to  inquire  after  their  successors,  he  makes 
this  very  ingenuous  confession:  "There  being  so  many  of  them, 
and  some  naturally  rivals,  it  is  not  easy  to  say  which  of  them 
were  accounted  eligible  to  govern  the  churches  established, 
unless  it  be  those  that  we  may  select  out  of  the  writings  of 
Paul."^  Say  you  so?  Is  it  so  hard  a  matter  to  find  out  who 
succeeded  the  apostles  in  the  churches  planted  by  them,  unless 
it  be  those  mentioned  in  the  writings  of  Paul?  What  be- 
comes then  of  our  unquestionable  line  of  succession  of  the 
bishops  of  several  churches,  and  the  large  diagrams  made  of 

'  Plut.  in  Thcseo. 

2  'Oa-oi    Se    TouToiv,   xai  tive;  yvncriot  ^uXoorai   yiyovorti,  rat  wgoj  a'vra>v  t^(uQsi<7<ti 
iKavot  TTOifXttiveiv  ilontfxac^n^av  E)txX«<rtaf,  ov  paJiov  ineiiv  (/.n  on  yi  offov;  av  rtt  't^  ran 
llauXou <f>a)va)v  anXe^ono, — Hist.  Ecci.  1.  3.  c,  4. 
41 


3SS  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

the  apostolical  churches  with  every  one's  name  set  down  in 
his  order,  as  if  the  writer  had  been  Clarenceaulx  to  the  apos- 
tles themselves?  Is  it  come  to  this  at  last  that  we  have  nothing 
certain,  but  what  we  have  in  scriptures?  And  must  then  the 
tradition  of  the  church  be  our  rule  to  interpret  scriptures  by? 
An  excellent  way  to  find  out  the  truth  doubtless,  to  bend  the 
rule  to  the  crooked  stick,  to  make  the  judge  stand  to  the 
opinion  of  his  lacquey,  what  sentence  he  shall  pass  upon  the 
cause  in  question;  to  make  scripture  stand  cap  in  hand  to  tra- 
dition, to  know  whether  it  may  have  leave  to  speak  or  not! 
Are  all  the  great  outcries  of  apostolical  tradition,  of  personal 
succession,  of  unquestionable  records  resolved  at  last  into  the 
scripture  itself  by  him  from  whom  all  these  long  pedigrees  are 
fetched?  Then  let  succession  know  its  place,  and  learn  to 
vaile  bonnet  to  the  scriptures.  And  withal,  let  men  take  heed 
of  over-reaching  themselves  when  they  would  bring  down  so 
large  a  catalogue  of  single  bishops  from  the  first  and  purest 
times  of  the  church,  for  it  will  be  hard  for  others  to  believe 
them,  when  Eusebius  professeth  it  is  so  hard  to  find  them. 
Well  might  Scaliger  then  complain  that  the  interval  from  the 
last  chapter  of  the  Acts  to  the  middle  of  Trajan,  in  which 
time  Quadratus  and  Ignatius  began  to  flourish,  was  tempus 
ahrfKov,  "confused,"  as  Varro  speaks,^  a  mere  chaos  of  time 
filled  up  with  the  rude  conceptions  of  Papias,  Hermes,  and 
others,  who,  like  Hannibal,  when  they  could  not  find  a  way 
through,  would  make  one  either  by  force  or  fraud. 

But  yet,  thirdly,  here  is  another  defect  consequent  to  that 
of  time,  which  is  that  of  persons;  arising  not  only  from  a  de- 
fect of  records,  the  diptychs  of  the  church  being  lost,  which 
would  have  acquainted  us  with  the  times  of  suffering  of  the 
several  martyrs,  (by  them  called  their  natalitia,)  at  which 
times  their  several  names  were  enrolled  in  these  martyrologies, 
which  some,  as  Junius'^  observes,  have  ignorantly  mistaken 
for  the  time  of  their  being  made  bishops  of  the  places  wherein 
their  names  were  entered,  as  Jlnacletus,  Clytus  and  Clemens 
at  Rome;  I  say  the  defect  as  to  persons,  not  only  ariseth 
hence,  but  because  the  Christians  were  so  much  harassed 
with  persecutions,  that  they  could  not  have  that  leisure  then 
to  write  those  things,  which  the  leisure  and  peace  of  our  ages 
have  made  lis  so  eagerly  inquisitive  after.  Hence  even  the 
martyrologies  are  so  full  stufi'ed  with  fables;  witness  one  for 

>  Proleg.  in  Chron.  Eusebii.  2  Cont.  3,  I.  2,  c.  5,  not.  18. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  32:3 

all,  the  famous  legend  of  Catharina,^  who  suffered,  say  they, 
in  Diocletian's  time.  And  truly  the  story  of  Ignatius,  (as 
much  as  it  is  defended  with  his  epistles,)  doth  not  seem  to  be 
any  of  the  most  probable.  For,  wherefore  should  Ignatius 
of  all  others  be  brought  to  Rome  to  suffer,  when  the  procon- 
suls and  the  prxsides  pi'ovinciarumP-  did  everywhere  in  time 
of  persecution  execute  their  power  in  punishing  Christians  at 
their  own  tribunals,  without  sending  them  so  long  a  journey 
to  Rome  to  be  martyred  there?  And  how  came  Ignatius  to 
make  so  many  and  such  strange  excursions,  as  he  did  by  the 
story,  if  the  soldiers  that  were  his  guard  were  so  cruel  to  him, 
as  he  complains  they  were?  Now  all  those  uncertain  and 
fabulous  narrations  as  to  persons  then,  arising  from  want  of 
sufficient  records  made  at  those  times,  make  it  niore  evident 
how  incompetent  a  judge  antiquity  is,  as  to  the  certainty  of 
things  done  in  apostolical  times.  If  we  should  only  speak  of 
the  fabulous  legends  of  the  first  planters  of  churches  in  these 
western  parts,  we  need  no  further  evidence  of  the  great  de- 
fect of  antiquity  as  to  persons.  Not  to  go  out  of  our  own  na- 
tion, whence  come  the  stories  of  Peter,  James,  Paul,  Simon, 
Aristobulus,  besides  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  and  his  company; 
all  being  preachers  of  the  gospel,  and  planters  of  churches 
here,  but  only  from  the  great  defect  in  antiquity,  as  to  the 
records  of  persons  employed  in  the  several  places  for  preach- 
ing the  gospel?  Thus  much  to  show  the  defectiveness  as  to 
the  records  of  antiquity,  and  thereby  the  incompetency  of 
them  for  being  a  way  to  find  out  the  certain  course  the  apos- 
tles took  in  settling  and  governing  churches  by  them  planted. 
§  17.  The  next  thing  showing  the  incompetency  of  the 
records  of  the  church  for  deciding  the  certain  form  of  church 
government  in  the  apostles'  times,  is,  the  ambiguity  of  the 
testimony  given  by  those  records.  A  testimony  sufficient  to 
decide  a  controversy,  must  be  plain  and  evident,  and  must 
speak  full  and  home  to  the  case  under  debate.  Now  if  I  make 
it  appear  that  antiquhy  doth  not  so;  nothing  then  can  be  evi- 
dent from  thence,  but  that  we  are  left  to  as  great  uncertainties 
as  before.  The  matter  in  controversy  is,  whether  any  in  a 
superior  order  to  presbyters  were  instituted  by  the  apostles 
themselves  for  the  regulating  of  the  churches  by  them  planted? 
For  the  proving  of  which,  three  things  are  the  most  insisted 
on:  First,  The  personal  succession  of  some  persons  to  the 
apostles  in  churches  by  them  planted:  Secondly,  The  appro- 

'  V.Chamier.  torn.  1, 1. 2,  cap.  16.  *  Presidents  of  the  provinces. 


324  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

priating  the  name  ErttaxoTtoi,  to  bishops  in  a  superior  order  to 
presbyters,  after  the  apostles'  decease:  Thirdly,  The  churches 
owning  the  order  of  episcopacy,  as  of  divine  institution.  If 
now  we  can  make  these  three  things  evident:  'First,  That 
personal  succession  might  be  without  such  superiority  of 
order:  Secondly,  That  the  names  of  bishop  and  presbyters 
were  common  after  the  distinction  between  them  was  intro- 
duced: and  Thirdly,  That  the  church  did  not  own  episco- 
pacy as  a  divine  institution,  but  ecclesiastical;  and  those 
ivho  seem  to  speak  most  of  it,  do  mean  no  more:  I  shall  sup- 
pose enough  done  to  invalidate  the  testimony  of  antiquity  as 
to  the  matter  in  hand.  First,  then,  for  the  matter  of  suc- 
cession in  apostolical  churches,  I  shall  lay  down  these  four 
things,  to  evince  that  the  argument  drawn  from  thence  can- 
not fully  clear  the  certain  course  which  the  apostles  took  in 
settling  the  government  of  churches.  First,  That  the  suc- 
cession might  be  only  as  to  a  different  degree,  and  not  as  to  a 
different  order;  where  the  succession  is  clear,  nothing  possibly 
can  be  inferred  from  it  beyond  this.  For  bare  succession  im- 
plies no  more  than  that  there  was  one  in  those  churches  suc- 
ceeding the  apostles,  from  whom  afterwards  the  succession 
was  derived.  Now  then  supposing  only  at  present,  that  it 
was  the  custom,  in  all  the  churches  at  that  time,  to  be  ruled 
by  a  college  of  presbyters  acting  in  a  parity  of  power,  and 
among  these,  one  to  sit  as  the  Nasi  in  the  sanhedrim;  having 
a  priority  of  order  above  the  rest  in  place,  without  any  supe- 
riority of  power  over  his  colleagues;  will  not  the  matter  of 
succession  be  clear  and  evident  enough  notwithstanding  this? 
Succession  of  persons  was  the  thing  inquired  for,  and  not  a 
successio7i  of  power;  if  therefore  those  that  would  prove  a 
succession  of  apostolical  power,  can  only  produce  a  list  and 
catalogue  of  names  in  apostolical  churches,  without  any  evi- 
dence of  what  power  they  had,  they  apparently  fail  of  proving 
the  thing  in  question,  which  is  not,  whether  there  might  not 
be  found  out  a  list  of  persons  in  many  churches  derived  from 
the  apostles'  times;  but  whether  those  persons  did  enjoy  by 
way  of  peculiarity  and  appropriation  to  themselves,  that  power 
which  the  apostles  had  over  many  churches  while  they  lived? 
Now  this,  the  mere  succession  will  never  prove,  which  will 
best  appear  by  some  parallel  instances.  At  Athens,  after 
they  grew  weary  of  their  ten  years  Ae^xovta,  "chiefs,"  the 
people  chose  nine  every  year  to  govern  the  affairs  of  the  com- 
monwealth. These  nine  enjoyed  a  parity  of  power  among 
themselves,  and  therefore  had  a  place  where  they  consulted 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  325 

together  about  the  matters  of  state  which  was  called  Xt^atijyi.ov, 
"  tlie  general's  residence,  or  tribunal,"  as  Demosthenes,^  Flu- 
tarc/i, and  others  tell  us.  Now  although  they  enjoyed  this 
equality  of  power,  yet  one  of  them  had  greater  dignity  than 
the  rest,  and  therefore  was  called  A^x^v,  "■  chief,"  by  way  of 
excellency,  and  hte  name  was  only  set  in  the  public  records  of 
that  year,  and  therefore  was  called  a^x<^v sTtuwfioi,  "the  archou 
who  gave  his  name  to  the  year  of  his  office,"  and  the  year 
was  reckoned  from  him,  as  Puiisanius,^  and  Julius  Pollux 
inform  us.  Here  we  see  now  the  succession  clear  in  one 
single  person,  and  yet  no  superiority  of  power  in  him  over  his 
colleagues.  The  like  may  be  observed  among  the  Ephori 
and  Bidisej  at  Sparta;  the  number  of  the  Ephori  was  always 
five  from  their  first  institution  by  Lycurgus,  and  not  nine,  (as 
the  Greek  etymologist  imagines):  these  enjoyed  likewise  a 
parity  of  power  among  them;  but  among  these  to  give  name 
to  the  year,  they  made  choice  of  one  who  was  called  Ert«w;itoj 
here  too,  as  the  A^x^v  at  Athens,  and  him  they  called  7ie,o&at(^- 
■eato; s^o^av,  "the  principal  of  the  Ephori,"  as  Plutarch  tells 
US.3  Where  we  have  the  very  name  ^poffcj,  "principal  chief," 
attributed  to  him  that  had  only  his  primacy  of  order  without 
any  superiority  of  power,  which  is  used  by  Justin  Martyr 
of  the  president  of  assemblies  among  the  Christians. 

Now  from  hence  we  may  evidently  see  that  mere  succes- 
sion of  some  single  persons  named  above  the  rest,  in  the  suc- 
cessions in  apostolical  churches,  cannot  enforce  any  superiority 
of  power  in  the  persons  so  named,  above  others  supposed  to 
be  as  joint  governors  of  the  churches  with  them.  I  dispute 
not  whether  it  were  so  or  not;  whether  according  to  Blondell 
the  succession  was  from  the  «pcoT'o;i;jtpoT'oi/»;9£t5,  "  the  one  voted 
first  by  a  show  of  hands,"  or  whether  by  choice,  as  at  Alex- 
andria; but  I  only  now  show  that  this  argument  from  succes- 
sion is  weak,  and  proves  not  at  all  the  certainty  of  the  power 
those  persons  enjoyed.  Secondly,  This  succession  is  not  so 
evident  and  convincing  in  all  places  as  it  ought  to  be,  to 
demonstrate  the  thing  intended.  It  is  not  enough  to  show 
a  list  of  some  persons  in  the  great  churches  of  Jerusalem, 
Antioch,  Rome,  and  Alexandria,  (although  none  of  these  be 
unquestionable.)  but  it  should  be  produced  at  Philippi,  Corinth, 
Caesarea,  and  in  all  the  seven  churches  of  Asia,  (and  not  only 

•  Demosth.  in  Midiam.  Plut.  in  Peril,  et  vit.  Niciae;  V.  Meursium  de  Archont. 
Allien.  1. 1,  c.  9.  Ennium  lie  Ep.  Atli. 

2  Paus.  in  Lacon.  Pollux.  Onom.  lib.  8,  c.  9. 

3  Paus.  Lacon  V.  Nic.Cragium  de  Rep.  Laced,  lib.  2,  c.5. 


326  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

at  Ephesns,)  and  so  likewise  in  Crete,  some  succeeding  Titus; 
and  not  think  men  will  be  satisfied  with  the  naming  a  bishop 
of  Gortyna  so  long  after  him.  Bnt,  as  I  said  before,  in  none 
of  the  churches  most  spoken  of,  is  the  succession  so  clear  as  is 
necessary.  For  at  Jerusalem  it  seems  somewhat  strange  how 
fifteen  bishops  of  the  circumcision  should  be  crowded  into  so 
narrow  a  room  as  they  are,  so  that  many  of  them  could  not 
have  above  two  years  time  to  rule  in  the  church.  And  it 
would  bear  an  inquiry  where  the  seat  of  the  bishops  of  Jeru- 
salem was  from  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  the  city  by 
Titus,  (when  the  walls  were  laid  even  with  the  ground  by 
Musonius,)  till  the  time  of  Jldrian;  for  till  that  time  the  suc- 
cession of  the  bishops  of  the  circumcision  continued.  For 
Antioch,  it  is  far  from  being  agreed,  whether  Euodius  or 
Ignatius  succeeded  Peter,  or  Paul;  or  the  one  Peter,  and 
the  other  Paul;  much  less  at  Rome,  whether  Cletus,  Ana- 
cletus,  or  Clemens  are  to  be  reckoned  first;  (but  of  these  after- 
wards.) At  Alexandria  where  the  succession  runs  clearest,  the 
original  of  the  power  is  imputed  to  the  choice  of  presbyters, 
and  to  no  divine  institution.  But  at  Ephesus  the  succession 
of  bishops  from  Timothy  is  pleaded  with  the  greatest  confi- 
dence; and  the  testimony  brought  for  it,  is  from  Leontius 
bishop  of  Magnesia  in  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  whose  words 
are  these,  "  From  Timothy  to  this  day  there  hath  been  a  suc- 
cession of  seven  and  twenty  bishops,  all  of  them  ordained  in 
Ephesus."^  1  shall  not  insist  so  much  on  the  incompetency 
of  this  single  whness  to  pass  a  judgment  upon  a  thing  of  that 
nature,  at  the  distance  of  four  hundred  years,  in  which  time 
records  being  lost,  and  bishops  being  after  settled  there,  no 
doubt  they  would  begin  their  account  from  Timothy,  because 
of  his  employment  there  once  for  settling  the  churches  there- 
about. And  to  that  end  we  may  observe  them  in  the  after- 
times  of  the  church,  they  never  met  with  any  of  the  apostles, 
or  evangelists  in  any  place,  but  they  presently  made  them 
bishops  of  that  place.  So,  Philip  is  made  bishop  of  Trallis, 
Ananias  bishop  of  Damascus,  Nicolaus  bishop  of  Samaria, 
Barnabas  bishop  of  Milan,  Silas  bishop  of  Corinth,  Sylvanus 
of  Thessalonica,  Crescens  of  Chalcedon,  Andreas  of  Byzan- 
tium, and  upon  the  same  grounds  Peter  bishop  of  Rome.  No 
wonder  then  if  Leontius  makes  Timothy  bishop  of  Ephesus, 

'  Atto  tou  ayiov  Ti/mo&eoi;  jwexfi  vuv  eikoiti  STrra  ima-KOTtoi  eytvovro'.  wavTE?  sn  Efes-io 
EXsiooTovn&Dj-ay. — Cone.  Chalcedonens.  Part  2,  Act  11,  apud  1.  in  Concil.  Gr.  La. 
torn'.  3,  p.  410. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  327 

and  derives  the  succession  down  from  him.  But  again,  this 
was  not  an  act  of  the  council  itself,  but  only  of  one  single 
person,  delivering  his  private  opinion  in  it;  and  that  which  is 
most  observable,  is,  that  in  the  thing  mainly  insisted  on  by 
Leontius,  he  was  contradicted  in  the  face  of  the  whole 
council,  by  Philip  a  presbyter  of  Constantinople.  For  the 
case  of  Bassianus  and  Stephen,  about  their  violent  intrusion 
into  the  bishopric  of  Ephesus,  being  discussed  before  the 
council;  a  question  was  propounded  by  the  council  where  the 
bishop  of  Ephesus  was  to  be  regularly  ordained,  according  to 
the  canons.  Leontius  bishop  of  Magnesia  saith,  that  there 
had  been  twenty-seven  bishops  of  Ephesus  from  Timothy, 
and  all  of  them  ordained  in  the  place.  -His  business  was  not 
to  derive  exactly  the  succession  of  bishops,  but  speaking 
according  to  vulgar  tradition,  he  insists  that  all  had  been 
ordained  there.  Now  if  he  be  convicted  of  the  crimen  falsi 
"  crime  of  falsehood"  in  his  to  s^yov,  "■  work,"  no  wonder  if 
we  meet  with  a  mistake  in  his  rtaptpyov  "supplement,"  i.  e.  if 
he  were  out  in  his  allegation,  no  wonder  if  he  were  deceived 
in  his  tradition.  Now  as  to  the  ordination  of  the  bishops  in 
Ephesus,  Philip,  a  presbyter  of  Constantinople,  convicts  him 
of  falsehood  in  that;  for,  saith  he,  John  bishop  of  Constanti- 
nople going  into  Asia,  deposed  fifteen  bishops  there,  and 
ordained  others  in  their  room.  And  Aetius  archdeacon  of 
Constantinople  instanceth  in  Castinus,  Heraclides,  Basilins 
bishop  of  Ephesus,  all  ordained  by  the  bishop  of  Constanti- 
nople. If  then  the  certainty  of  succession  relies  on  the  credit 
of  this  Leontius,  let  them  thank  the  council  of  Chalcedon, 
who  have  sufficiently  blasted  it,  by  determining  the  cause 
against  him  in  the  main  evidence  produced  by  him.  So  much 
to  show  how  far  the  clearest  evidence  for  succession  of  bishops 
from  apostolical  times  is  from  being  convincing  to  any  rational 
man.  Thirdly,  the  succession  so  much  pleaded  by  the  writers 
of  the  primitive  church,  was  not  a  succession  of  persons  in 
apostolical  poiuer,  but  a  succession  in  apostolical  doctrine; 
which  will  be  seen  by  a  view  of  the  places  produced  to  that 
purpose.  The  first  is  that  of  Irenseus.  "  Since  it  would  be 
far  too  tedious  in  a  volume  of  this  kind,  to  enumerate  the 
successions  of  all  the  churches,  especially  of  that  most  ancient 
church,  best  known  to  all,  founded  and  established  at  Rome, 
by  the  two  most  illustrious  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul;  having 
shown  that  which  hath  its  tradition  from  the  apostles,  and  its 
faith  declared  to  mankind  by  its  succession  of  bishops  coming 


328  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

even  unto  us,  we  blend  together  all  these;"  &c.*  Where  we 
see  Irenaius  doth  the  least  of  all  aim  at  the  making  out  of  a 
succession  of  apostolical  power  in  the  bishops  he  speaks  of, 
but  a  conveying  of  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles  down  to  them 
by  their  hands:  (which  doctrine  is  here  called  tradition,  not 
as  that  word  is  abused  by  the  papists  to  signify  something 
distinct  from  the  scriptures,  but  as  it  signifies  the  conveyance 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  scripture  itself)  Which  is  cleared  by 
the  beginning  of  that  chapter,  "  Therefore  it  is  to  the  purpose 
to  make  plain  to  all,  who  have  a  mmd  to  hear,  the  tradition 
of  the  apostles,  announced  in  the  church,  throughout  the 
whole  world;  and  we  have  to  enumerate  the  bishops,  who 
were  ordained  by  the  apostles  in  the  churches,  and  their  suc- 
cessors even  unto  us,  who  have  neither  known,  nor  taught 
any  such  thing,  as  is  idly  talked  of  by  them."^  His  plain 
meaning  is,  that  those  persons  who  were  appointed  by  the 
apostles  to  oversee  and  govern  churches,  being  sufficient  wit- 
nesses themselves  of  the  apostles'  doctrine,  have  conveyed  it 
down  to  us  by  their  successors,  and  we  cannot  learn  any  such 
thing  of  them,  as  Vahntinus  and  his  followers  broached. 
We  see  it  is  the  doctrine  still  he  speaks  of,  and  not  a  word 
what  power  and  superiority  these  bishops  had  over  presbyters 
in  their  several  churches.  To  the  same  purpose  Tertullian 
in  that  known  speech  of  his;  "  They  publish  the  origin  of  their 
churches,  they  turn  over  the  order  of  their  bishops,  so  that  by 
successions,  running  from  the  beginning,  he,  the  first  bishop, 
may  have  had  some  one  of  the  apostles,  or  of  apostolic  men 
for  his  founder  and  predecessor.  In  this  manner,  the  apos- 
tolical churches  report  their  register;  as,  the  church  of  Smyrna, 
having  had  Polycarp,  reports,  that  he  was  settled  there  by 
John;  as  Clement  of  the  church  of  Rome,  it  is  said,  was 
ordained  by  Peter.  Just  so,  also,  the  rests  how  whom  they 
have  had,  as  grafts  from  the  apostolic  extraction,  and  estab- 
lished in  the  episcopacy  of  the  apostles,"^     A  succession  I 


•  Quoniam  vald6  longum  est  in  hoc  tali  volumine  omnium  ecclesiarum  enunie- 
rarc  successiones,  maxim6  antiquissimse,  et  omnibus  cognitEE  &,  gloriosissimis  duo- 
bus  apostolis  Petro  et  Paulo,  Romae  fundatse  et  conslitulae  ecclesiae,  cam  quam  habet 
ab  apostolis  traditioncm,  et  annuriciatam  iiominibus  fidem,  per  successiones  epis- 
coporum  pervenientes  usque  ad  nos,  indicantes,  confundimus  omnes  eos,  &c. — 
Advers.  heres.  1.  3,  cap.  3. 

2  Tradilionem  itaque  apostolorum  in  toto  mundo  manifestatam  in  ecclesia  adest 
perspicere  omnibus,  qui  vera  velint  audire;  et  habemus  annumerare  eos  qui  ab 
apostolis  instituti  ^unt  episcopi  in  ecclesiis,  et  successores  eorum  usque  ad  nos 
qui  nihil  tale  docuerunt  neque  cognoverunt,  quale  ab  his  deliratur. 

'  Edant  origines  ecclesiarum  suarum,  evolvant  ordinem  episcoporum  suorum, 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  329 

grant  is  proved  in  apostolical  churches  by  these  words  of  Ter- 
tulllan,  and  this  succession  of  persons,  and  those  persons 
bishops  too,  but  then  it  is  only  said  that  these  persons  derived 
their  office  from  the  apostles,  but  nothing  expressed  what  re- 
lation they  had  to  the  church  any  more  than  is  implied  in  the 
general  name  of  episcojn;  nor  what  power  they  had  over 
presbyters:  only  that  there  were  such  persons,  was  sufficient 
to  his  purpose,  which  was  to  prescribe  against  heretics;  i.  e. 
to  nonsuit  them,  or  to  give  in  general  reasons  why  they  were 
not  to  be  proceeded  with  as  to  the  particular  debate  of  the 
things  in  question  between  them.  For  prsescribere  in  the 
civil  law,  (whence  T.\rtullian  transplanted  that  word  as 
many  others  into  the  church,)  is,  "  when  any  one,  by  certain 
exceptions,  removes  the  opponent's  answer  from  the  plain- 
tiff's declaration,  and  denies  that  there  should  be  any  debate 
relative  to  the  chief  matter  of  the  party  accused;  or  that  the 
cause,  by  an  exception  laid  in  law,  should  be  determined:"^ 
three  sorts  of  these  prescriptions  Tertullian  elsewhere  men- 
tions: "This  was  to  demand  the  truth,  against  v/hich  no  one 
could  enter  an  exception,  either  the  lapse  of  time,  the  patron- 
age of  persons,  or  the  privilege  of  countries, "^  Here  he  stands 
upon  the  first  which  is  a  prescription  of  time,  because  the  doc- 
trine which  was  contrary  to  that  of  the  heretics  was  delivered 
by  the  apostles,  and  conveyed  down  by  their  successors, 
which  was  requisite  to  be  shown  in  order  to  the  making  his 
prescription  good;  which  he  thus  further  explains:  "  Now 
come  you  that  have  a  mind  better  to  exercise  your  curiosity 
in  a  matter  relative  to  your  own  safety;  pass  over  the  apos- 
tolical churches,  where  the  very  seats  themselves  of  the  apostles, 
in  their  own  places,  yet  preside,  and  where  their  genuine  and 
original  letters  are  recited,  sounding  yet  their  voices,  and  pre- 
senting the  face  of  each  before  you.  Have  you  Greece  near 
at  hand?  Have  you  Corinth?  If  not  far  from  Macedonia, 
have  you  Philippi,  or  Thessalonica?     If  thou  canst,  travel  to 


ita  per  successiones  ab  initio  decurrentem,  ut  primus  ille  episcopus  aliquem  ex 
apostolis  aut  apostolicis  viris  habuerit  authorem  et  anlecessorem.  Hoc  modo 
ecclesise  apostoiicse  census  suos  deferunt;  sicut  SmyrnEeorum  ecclesia  habens 
Polycarpum  &.  Johanne  conlocatum  refert,  sicut  Romanorum  Clementcm  &,Petro 
ordinatum  edit;  proinde  utique  et  cseterae  exhibent,  quos  ab  apostolis  in  episcopa- 
tuni  constitutes  apostolici  scminis  traduces  habeant. — De  praescript.  advers.  hsret. 
cap.  32. 

1  Cum  quis  adversarium  certis  exceptionibus  removet  Ji  lite  contestanda,,  ita  ut 
de  sumnia  rei  neget  agendum,  eamve  causam  ex  juris  prsBscripto  judicanda. 

2  Hoc  exigere  veritatem  cui  nemo  prsescribere  potest,  non  spatium  temporum, 
non  patrocinia  personarum,  non  privilegium  regionum. — D.  Vergin.  veland.  c.  1, 

42 


330  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

Asia;  there  have  you  Ephesus;  and  if  near  to  Italy,  there  you 
have  Rome;  whence  we  also  have  their  testimony  quite  at 
hand."^  What  he  spoke  before  of  the  persons,  he  now  speaks 
of  the  churches  themselves  planted  by  the  apostles,  which,  by 
retaining  the  authentic  epistles  of  the  apostles  sent  to  them, 
did  thereby  sufficiently  prescribe  to  all  the  novel  opinions  of 
the  heretics.  We  see  then  evidently  that  it  is  the  doctrine 
which  they  speak  of  as  to  succession,  and  the  persons  no 
further  than  as  they  are  the  conveyers  of  that  doctrine;  either 
then  it  must  be  proved  that  a  succession  of  some  persons  in 
apostolical  power  is  necessary  for  the  conveying  of  this  doc- 
trine to  men,  or  no  argument  at  all  can  be  inferred  from  hence 
for  their  succeeding  the  apostles  in  their  power,  because  they 
are  said  to  convey  down  the  apostolical  doctrine  to  succeeding 
ages;  which  is  Jiustiri's  meaning  in  that  speech  of  his:  "The 
root  of  Christian  society,  (i.  e.  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel,)  is 
spread  abroad  the  world  through  the  channels  of  the  apostoli- 
cal sees,  and  the  continued  successions  of  bishops  therein."^ 
And  yet  if  we  may  believe  the  same  Austin,  "According  to 
the  terms  of  honour,  which  now  the  usage  of  the  church  of 
Rome  hath  brought  about,  the  episcopacy  is  superior  to  the 
presbytery."^  The  difference  between  episcopacy  and  pres- 
bytery rises  from  the  custom  of  the  church,  attributhig  a  name 
of  greater  honour  to  those  it  had  set  above  others.  And  as 
for  Tertullian,  I  believe  neither  party  will  stand  to  his  judg- 
ment as  to  the  original  of  church  power.  For  he  saith  ex- 
pressly, differentiam  inter  ordinem  et  plebem  constituit 
ecclesise  auctoritas,^  "all  the  difference  between  ministers  and 
people  comes  from  the  church's  authority;"  unless  he  mean 
something  more  by  the  following  words,  et  honor  per  ordinis 
concessum  sanctijicatus  d,  Deo,  "  that  the  honour  which  is 
received  by  ordination  from  the  bench  of  church  officers  is 
sanctified  by  God,"  viz.  by  his  appointment  as  well  as  bless- 


'  Age  jam  qui  voles  curiositatcm  melius  exercere  in  negotio  salutis  luce;  pcr- 
curre  ecclesias  apostolicas,  apud  quas  ipsae  adhuc  catliedrsB  apostolorum  suis  locis 
praesidentur,  apud  quas  ipsae  authenticaB  eorum  literse  recilantur,  sonantes  vocem 
et  praesentantes  facicm  uniuscujusque.  Proxim6  est  tibi  Achaia?  habes  Corin- 
thum.  Si  non  longe  es  k  Macedonia,  habes  Philippos,  habes  Thessalonicenses. 
Si  potes  in  Asiam  tendere,  habes  Ephesum.  Si  autem  Italiaj  adjaces,  habes  Ko- 
mam,  unde  nobis  quoque  auctoritas  praestd  est. — Dap.  37.  de  prEescript. 

2  Radix  Christianae  soeietatis  per  sedes  apostolorum  et  successiones  episcopo- 
rum,  certa  per  orbem  propagalione  diffunditur. — Aug.  Ep.  42. 

3  Secundum  honorum  vocabula  quae  jam  ecclesiae  usus  obtinuit,  episcopatus 
presbyterio  major  est. — Aug.  Ep.  29. 

4  Exhort.  Castil.  c.  7. 


-0 

FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENr.  331 

ing.  For  otherwise  I  know  not  how  to  understand  hinri.  But 
however,  we  see  here  he  makes  the  government  of  the  church 
to  He  in  a  concessus  ordinis,  which  I  know  not  how  otherwise  to 
render,  tlian  by  a  bench  of  presbyter's;  because  only  they  were 
said  in  ordinem  couptari,  who  were  made  presbyters,  and 
not  those  who  were  promoted  to  any  higher  degree  in  the 
church.  By  the  way,  we  may  observe  the  original  of  the 
name  of  Holy  Orders  in  tlie  church,  not  as  the  papists,  and 
others  following  them,  as  though  it  noted  anything  inherent 
by  way  of  (I  know  not  what)  character  in  the  person;  but 
because  the  persons  ordained  were  thereby  admitted  in  ordi- 
nem, among  the  number  of  church  officers.  So  there  was 
ordo  senatorum,  "the  order  of  the  senate;"  ordo  eguestris, 
"of  the  equestrians;"  ordo  decurionum,  "of  the  knights;"  and 
ordo  sacerdotum,  "  the  order  of  priests,"  among  the  Romans,^ 
as  in  this  incription: 

"  The  order  of  the  Priests  of  God,  and  Hercules  the  invincible."^ 

From  hence  the  use  of  the  word  came  into  the  church;  and 
thence  ordination,  ex  vi  vocis,  "from  the  force  of  the  words," 
imports  no  more  than  solemn  admission  into  this  order  of 
presbyters;  and  therefore  it  is  observable,  that  laying  on  of 
hands  never  made  men  priests  under  the  law,  but  only  admit- 
ted them  into  public  office.  So  much  for  Tertullian'' s  Con- 
cessus ordinis,  which  hath  thus  far  drawn  us  out  of  our  way, 
but  we  now  return.  And  therefore,  Fourthly,  This  personal 
succession  so  much  spoken  of,  is  sometimes  attributed  to 
presbyters,  even  after  the  distinction  came  into  use  between 
bishops  and  them.  And  that  even  by  those  authors  who 
before  had  told  us  the  succession  was  by  bishops,  as  Irenxris: 
"But  when  we  return  again  to  that  tradition,  whicli  is  from 
the  apostles,  and  which  is  guarded  in  the  churches,  through 
the  succession  of  presbyters,  we  provoke  those  who  are  op- 
posed to  tradition:  they  say,  that  they,  existing  not  only  from 
the  presbyters,  but  also  from  the  apostles,  are  more  plenteously 
endued  with  wisdom."^  Here  he  attributes  the  keeping  of 
the  tradition  of  apostolical  doctrine  to  the  succession  of  pres- 
byters, which  before  he  had  done  to  bishops.      And  more 

1  V.  Selden,  in  Eutych.  p.  28. 

2  Ordo  sacerdot.  Dei  Herculis  invicti. 

3  Cum  autein  ad  earn  iterum  traditionem,  quae  est  ab  Apostolis,  qua  per  suc- 
cessiones  presbyterorum  in  ecclesiis  custoditur,  provocamus  eos  qui  adversantur 
traditioni;  dicent,  se  non  solum  presbyteris  sed  etiam  apostolis  existentes  sapien- 
tiores,  &c. — Adver.  hseres.  I.  3,  c.  2. 


332  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

fully  afterwards:  « Therefore  it  is  incumbent  on  those,  who 
are  in  the  church,  to  obey  the  presbyters,  who  have  their  suc- 
cession from  the  apostles,  as  we  have  shown,  who,  together 
with  the  succession  of  the  episcopacy,  have  received  the  un- 
erring gift  of  truth,  according  to  the  will 'of  the  Father."^  In 
this  place  he  not  only  asserts  the  succession  of  presbyters  to 
the  apostles,  but  likewise  attributes  the  successio  episcopatus 
to  these  very  presbyters.  What  strange  confusion  must  this 
raise  in  any  one's  mind,  that  seeks  for  a  succession  of  episco- 
pal power  above  presbyters  from  the  apostles,  by  the  testi- 
mony of  Irenseus,  when  he  so  plainly  attributes  both  the  suc- 
cession to  presbyters,  and  the  episcopacy  too,  which  he  speaks 
of?  And  in  the  next  chapter  adds:  "Such  presbyters  the 
church  maintains,  concerning  which  even  the  prophet  says,  I 
will  both  give  thy  princes  to  be  in  peace,  and  thy  bishops  in 
righteousness."^  Did  Irenaeiis  think  that  bishops  in  a  supe- 
rior order  to  presbyters  were  derived  by  an  immediate  suc- 
cession from  the  apostles,  and  yet  call  the  presbyters  by  the 
name  of  bishops?  It  is  said  indeed,  that  in  the  apostles'  times 
the  names  bishop  and  presbyter  were  common,  although  the 
office  was  distinct,  but  tliat  was  only  during  the  apostles'  life, 
say  some,  when  after  the  name  bishop  was  appropriated  to 
that  order  that  was  in  the  apostles  (so  called  before);  but,  say 
others,  it  was  only  till  subject  presbyters  were  constituted,  and 
then  grew  the  difference  between  the  names.  But  neither  of 
these  tfoijJtt  ^apjttaxa,  "shrewd  artifices,"  can  draw  forth  the  dif- 
ficulty in  these  places  of  Irenseus,  for  now  both  the  apostles 
were  dead,  and  subject  presbyters  certainly  in  some  of  these 
apostolical  churches  were  then  constituted;  whence  comes 
then  the  community  of  names  still,  that  those  who  are  said  to 
succeed  the  apostles,  are  called  bishops  in  one  place,  but  pres- 
byters in  another,  and  the  very  succession  of  episcopacy  at- 
tributed to  presbyters?  Can  we  then  possibly  conceive  that 
these  testimonies  of  Irenseus  can  determine  the  point  of  suc- 
cession, so  as  to  make  clear  to  us  what  that  power  was  which 
those  persons  enjoyed,  whom  he  sometimes  calls  bishops,  and 
sometimes  presbyters.  But  it  is  not  Irenseus  alone  who  tells 
us  that  presbyters  succeed  the  apostles;  even  Cyprian,  who 

'  Quapropter  iis  qui  in  ecclesiS.  sunt  presbyteris  obaudire  oportel;  his  qui  suc- 
cessionem  habent  ab  apostoiis,  sicut  ostendimus,  qui  cum  episcopatus  succes- 
sione,  charisma  veritatis  certum  secundum  placitum  patris  acceperunt. — Lib.  4, 
cap.  43. 

2  Tales  presbyteros  nutrit  ecclesia,  de  quibus  et  propheta  ait,  et  dabo  prlncipes 
tuos  in  pace,  et  episcopos  tuos  in  justitia. — Cap.  44. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  333 

pleads  so  much  for  obedience  to  the  bishops  as  they  were  then 
constituted  in  the  church,  yet  speaks  often  of  his  comprcsby- 
^er*/ "fellow  presbyters;"  and  in  his  epistles  to  Florentius 
Ptipiamis,  who  had  reproached  him,  speaking  of  those  words 
of  Christ,  "  He  that  heareth  you,  heareth  me,"  &c.,  "  Who  saith 
to  the  apostles,  and  by  this  to  all  that  are  set  over  us,  who 
succeed  the  apostles  by  vicarious  ordination,"^  where  he  at- 
tributes apostolical  succession  to  all  that  were  prsepo§iti,  which 
name  implies  not  the  relation  to  presbyters  as  over  them,  bat 
to  the  people,  and  is  therefore  common  both  to  bishops  and 
presbyters;^  for  so  afterwards  he  speaks,  "Neither  hath  the 
brethren  a  bishop,  nor  the  people  one  set  over  it."  Jerome 
saith  that  presbyters  are  "  in  the  place  of  the  apostles,"  and 
that  they  "  do  succeed  to  the  apostles'  rank;"''  and  the  so  much 
magnified  Ignatius,  ne^iG^vtie^oi  h?  'toTiov  CDVES^tou  ^wv  Arto^o-Kuv, 
"that  the  presbyters  succeeded  in  the  place  of  the  bench  of  apos- 
tles;" and  elsewhere  oi  Sot  ion  the  deacon,  "He  is  subject  to  the 
bishop,  as  to  the  grace  of  God,  and  to  the  presbyter  as  to  the 
law  of  Jesus  Christ/'^  as  it  is  read  in  the  Florentine  copy  set 
out  by  Vossius;  but  in  the  former  editions,  both  by  Vedelius 
and  the  most  learned  primate  of  Armagh,  it  is  read,  "He  is 
subject  to  the  bishop  and  to  the  presbyter,  by  the  grace  of  God 
in  the  law  of  Jesus  Christ;'-'^  but  that  of  Vossius  seems  to  be 
the  true  reading,  to  which  the  old  Latin  version  in  Bishop 
Usher  fully  agrees:  "Since  he  is  subject  to  the  bishop,  as  to 
the  grace  of  God,  and  to  the  presbyter,  as  to  the  law  of  Jesus 
Christ."^  It  might  be  no  improbable  conjecture  to  guess  from 
hence  at  Ignatius^  opinion  concerning  the  original  both  of 
episcopacy  and  presbytery.  The  former  he  looks  on  as  an 
excellent  gift  of  God  to  the  church;^  so  a  learned  doctor  para- 
phraseth  Gratise  Dei,  i.  e.  Dono  d,  Deo  Ecclesise  indulto,  "  to 
the  grace  of  God,  i.  e.  to  a  gift  granted  to  the  church  by  God;" 

1  Ep.  69,  ed.  Pamel,  s.  4. 

2  Qui  dicit  ad  apostolos,  ac  per  hoc  ad  omnes  prsepositos  qui  apostolis  vicaria 
ordinalione  succedunt. 

3  V.  Cyprian,  ep.  3,  a  Cler.  Rom.  ep.  62,  et  65,  in  Midi.  2,  epist.  1. 

••  Nee  fraternitas  habuerit  episcopum,  nee  plebs  praepositum,  &c.,  .lerome 
saith,  that  presbyters  are  loco  apostolorum,  and  that  they  do  apostoHco  gradui 
succcdere. — Ep.  ad  Mag.  p.  33,  ed.  Is.  Vossi.  p.  31. 

5  On  UTTOTtts-c-ETat  T(B  ima-nontu  aig  ya^vn  Seoy,  xai  tta  'ET^er^uTE^to)  ojj  V0|t*tt)  lucrow 
Xjirot;.— Vedel.  p.  50. 

^  'OtI  UTTOTaS-lTETttl  TO)  iTXi!TMTCIO  HUt  TO)  tiT^tlTBvrS^lta  ^apiTl  QlOV  EV  V0fA,CO  Inaov  X^l^OW. 

— Usser.  p.  49. 

'  Quoniam  subjectus  est  episcopo  ut  gratiae  Dei,  et  presbylerio  ut  legi  Jesu 
Christi. 

8  Ep.  69. 


334  THE   DIVINE   RIGHT  OF 

SO  Cyprian  often  Divina  dignatione,  "on  the  divine  ma- 
jestjr,"  speaking  of  bisliops,  i.  e.  that  they  looked  on  it  as  an 
act  of  God's  special  favour  to  the  church  to  find  out  that  means 
for  unity  in  the  church,  to  pitch  upon  one  ahiong  the  presbyters 
who  should  have  the  chief  rule  hi  every  particular  church;  but 
then  for  presbytery,  he  looks  on  that  as  j/o^wos  iiqaov  x^tfof » an  in- 
stitution and  law  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  must  on  that  account 
always  continue  in  the  church.  And  so  Sotion  did  commend- 
ably  in  submitting  to  the  bishop,  as  a  favour  of  God  to  the 
church  for  preventing  schisms,  on  which  account  it  is,  and  not 
upon  the  account  of  divine  institution,  that  Ignatius  is  so 
earnest  in  requiring  obedience  to  the  bishop,  because  as  Cy- 
prian saith,  "  The  church  is  the  people  gathered  in  one  to  the 
bishop,  and  the  flock  cleaving  to  the  pastor;''^  and  the  bishops 
then  being  orthodox,  he  lays  such  a  charge  upon  the  people 
to  adhere  to  them,  (for  it  is  to  the  people,  and  not  to  the  pres- 
byters he  speaks  most,)  which  was  as  much  as  to  bid  them 
hold  to  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  avoid  those  pernicious 
heresies  which  were  then  abroad;  and  so  Igyiatius  and  Je- 
rome may  easily  be  reconciled  to  one  another;  both  owning 
the  council  of  presbyters  as  of  divine  institution,  and  both  re- 
quiring obedience  to  bishops  as  a  singular  privilege  granted  to 
the  church,  for  preventing  schisms,  and  preserving  unity  in  the 
faith.  And  in  all  those  thirty-five  testimonies  produced  out 
of  Ignatius''  epistles  for  episcopacy,  I  can  meet  but  with  one 
which  is  brought  to  prove  the  least  semblance  of  an  institution 
of  Christ  for  episcopacy:  and  if  I  be  not  much  deceived,  the 
sense  of  that  place  is  clearly  mistaken  too.  The  place  is  Ep.  ad 
Ephesios;  he  is  exhorting  the  Ephesians awt^sxst.vt'yi'yvuifiri  Tfov 
©SOD,  which  I  suppose  may  be  rendered  to  fulfil  the  will  of 
God;  so  rioitjGao  ■ifjv  yvu^Tiv  signifies,  ,/3pocalyps.  xvii.  17,  and 
adds:  "  For  Christ,  who  is  our  inseparable  life,  is  the  counsel 
of  the  Father;  and  the  bishops  who  are  scattered  abroad  to  the 
ends  of  the  earth,  are  the  counsel  of  Jesus  Christ;  i.  e.  do  con- 
cur with  the  will  of  Christ;  therefore  follow  the  counsel  of 
your  bishop,  which  also  you  do.^  He  begins  to  exhort  them 
to  concur  with  the  will  of  God,  and  concludes  his  exhortation 
to  concur  with  the  will  or  counsel  of  the  bishop;  and  in  the 
middle  he  shows  the  ground  of  the  connection  of  these  two.'' 
Everything  is  plain  and  obvious  in  the  sense  here,  and  very 

1  Ecclesia  est  plebs  Episcopo  coadunata,  et  grex  Pastori  adhserens. 

^  Km  yag  Insrou?  Kfir"?  to  aSjaxgirov  rifjiiii)/  ^osv,  tov  7ear^0(,  h  yvotfxrt,  oii;  xai  oi  Biria-KOirot 
01  Kara  ra  ici^aia  o^itrbivrs^  ev  Ina-ov  Xf  ij-oy  yvai(A.ri  £ifl-iv.  oSsv  ta^tttii  vf^iv  a-vvr^exeiv  t»  tou 
eittg-KOTTov  yyaifx»,  oirt^  xai  wotSfTE. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  335 

coherent  to  the  expressions  both  before  and  after,  only  the  iv 
must  be  left  out  as  plainly  redundant,  and  o^cs^svtii  must  not 
be  rendered  determi)iaH,"  deternnned,"  but  rather  disfer- 
minati,  "separated,"  because  it  refers  to  a  place  here,  and  so 
it  notes  their  being  dispersed  into  several  places,  and  separated 
from  one  another,  thereby  implying  the  unity  of  their  faith, 
and  the  coagulum  fidei,  "  cement  of  faith,"  notwithstanding 
their  distance  from  one  another  as  to  place  in  the  world,  which 
in  Cyprian^ s  words  is,  "the  churches  throughout  the  whole 
world,  universally  connected  together  by  the  bond  of  unity. "^ 
And  certainly  a  stronger  argument  than  this  could  not  have 
been  given  for  the  Ephesians'  cheerful  obedience  to  their 
bishop,  (which  is  the  thing  he  aims  at,)  than  the  universal 
consent  of  all  the  bishops  in  the  Christian  world  in  the  unity 
of  the  faith  of  Christ;  so  that  as  Christ  is  the  will  and  counsel 
of  the  Father,  because  of  that  harmony  and  consent  which  is 
between  their  wills;  so  the  bishops  are  the  will  and  counsel 
of  Christ,  as  cheerfully  uniting  in  the  profession  of  his  faith. 
So  that  we  see  Ignatius  himself  cannot  give  a  doubting  mind 
satisfaction  of  the  divine  institution  of  bishops,  when  in  the 
only  place  brought  to  that  purpose,  his  sense  is  quite  different 
from  what  it  is  brought  for.  So  that  the  records  of  the 
church  are  far  from  deciding  this  controversy,  as  to  the  cer- 
tainty of  the  form  of  government  instituted  by  Christ,  be- 
cause of  the  ambiguity  of  those  records  as  to  the  point  of 
succession  in  the  apostles,  in  that  this  succession  might  be 
only  of  a  different  degree,  in  that  it  is  not  clear  and  con- 
vincing in  all  places:  in  that  where  it  is  clearest,  it  is  meant 
of  a  succession  of  doctrine,  and  not  of  persons;  in  that  if  it 
were  of  persons,  yet  presbyters  are  said  to  succeed  the 
apostles  as  well  as  bishops,  by  the  same  persons  who  speak 
of  these.  By  which  last  thing  we  have  likewise  cleared  the 
second  thing  propounded,  to  show  the  ambiguity  of  the  tes- 
timony of  antiquity,  which  was  the  promiscuous  use  of  the 
names  of  bishop  and  presbyters,  after  the  distinction  be- 
tween their  office  was  brought  in  by  the  church.  For  we  have 
made  it  appear  that  the  names  are  promiscuously  used,  when 
that  succession  which  is  sometimes  attributed  to  bishops  is  at 
other  times  given  to  presbyters.  Other  instances  might  be 
brought  of  that  nature;  as,  first,  that  of  Clemens  Romanus  in 
his  excellent  epistle,which  like  the  xxv^xAlpheus  had  run  under 
ground  for  so  many  centuries  of  years,  but  hath  now  in  these 

1  EccIesiBB  universae  per  totum  mundum  unitatis  vinculo  copulatse. 


336  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

last  times  of  the  world  appeared  publicly  to  the  view  of  the 
world,  to  make  it  appear  how  true  that  is  which  he  saith  the 

apostles   did  foresee,    oft  J'ptj   s^at  rtspo  ■tov   ovona-toi  'tr^s  CTtoaxoTtt]^, 

"  that  there  would  be  great  contentions  about  the  name  of 
episcopacy:"^  and  so  there  are  still,  and  that  from  his  epistle 
too.  For  when  in  one  place  he  tells  us,  that  the  apostles 
ordained  their  first  fruits  to  be  bishops  and  deacons,  tuv 
ixsx-Kovtiov  xi^EViiv,  "  of  those  that  should  believe:''^  afterwards 
he  makes  no  scruple  of  calling  those  bishops  presbyters  in 
several  places,  ^axa^ioi,  oc  rc^ooiSoTtoprjaavtsi  ■tipsdSvtcpoi,  "  happy 
were  the  presbyters  that  travelled  before,"^  &c.,  and  speaking 
of  the  present  schism  at  Corinth,  he  saith,  "  It  was  a  most 
shameful  thing,  beloved,  and  unworthy  of  our  training  in 
Christ."'*  To  hear  the  firm  and  ancient  church  of  Corinth,  for 
the  sake  of  one  or  two  persons  to  raise  a  sedition  against  the 
presbyters;  and  afterwards,  ^itoi'oi'  no  Ttoifivtov  ■tov  Xpv^ov  sc^rivevi-ta 
xaifa-ti^v  xa^L^afisvuv  ^psa^vts^oiv',  "Only  let  the  flock  of  Christ 
enjoy  its  peace  with  the  presbyters  which  are  set  over  it."* 
But  because  this  is  said  to  be  spoken  before  the  time  of  dis- 
tinction between  bishops  and  presbyters,  it  being  supposed  that 
there  were  no  subject  presbyters  then,  (although  no  reason 
can  be  assigned  why  the  apostles  should  ordain  bishops,  ■tuv 
fis-kxoviuv  fii^gevsiv,  "  of  those  that  should  believe,"  and  should 
not  likewise  ordain  presbyters  for  them,)  yet  to  take  away  all 
scruple,  we  shall  go  farther;  when  subject  presbyters,  as  they 
are  called,  are  acknowledged  to  be,  and  yet  bishops  are  called 
presbyters  then  too;  for  which  we  have  the  clear  testimony  of 
the  martyrs  of  the  Galilean  church  in  their  epistle  to  Eleuthe- 
rius  bishop  of  Rome,  who  call  Irenseus  li^is^vtspov  exx-Kriaia,?, 
"  the  presbyter  of  the  church,"  when,  as  Blondell  observes,  he 
had  been  nine  years  bishop  of  Lyons  in  the  place  of  Pothi- 
misf  neither  doth  BlondeWs  argument  lie  here,  that  because 
they  call  him  the  presbyter  of  the  church,  therefore  he  was  no 
bishop,  as  his  antagonist  supposeth;^  but  he  freely  acknow- 
ledgeth  him  to  have  succeeded  Pothinus  there  in  his  bishopric; 
but"  because  after  the  difference  arose  between  bishop  and 
presbyters,  yet  they  called  him  by  the  name  of  presbyter,  it 

•  Ep.  gr.  lat.  p.  57.  2  Page  54. 

3  Page  57. 

■•  Aia")(_^e,,  ayamroif  xai  X/av  a-ir^^a  xa.i  ava^ia  rnf  en  X^t^ai  aymyni;  axouET&aj  rm 
^eSaiwraTUV  xai  ap)(aiav  Ko^nbtaiv  ennXnaiav  h  sv  n  ^uo  liTfocmTta,  facrta^eiv  -arpof  rovf 
•nrfEirSuTE^ouj. 

s  Pag.  69,  et  p.  73,  p.  2,  3.  «  Apol.  p.  31. 

7  Euseb.  1.  5,  cap.  3. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  337 

seems  very  improbable  that  when  they  were  commending  one 
to  the  bishop  of  another  church,  they  should  make  use  of  the 
lowest  name  of  honour  then  appropriated  to  subject  presbyters, 
which  instead  of  commending,  were  a  great  debasing  of  him, 
if  they  had  looked  on  a  superior  order  above  those  presbyters, 
as  of  divine  institution,  and  thought  there  had  been  so  great 
a  distance  between  a  bishop  and  subject  presbyters,  as  we  are 
made  to  believe  there  was.     Which  is,  as  if  the  master  of  a 
college  in  one  university  should  be  sent  by  the  fellows  of  his 
society  to  the  heads  of  the  other,  and  should  in  his  commen- 
datory letters  to  them,  be  styled  a  senior  fellow  of  that  house; 
would  not  any  one  that  read  this,  imagine  that  there  was  no 
difiference  between  a  senior  fellow  and  a  master,  but  only  a 
primacy  of  order,  that  he  was  the  first  of  the  number  without 
any  power  over  the  rest?     This  was  the  case  of  Irenseus: 
he  is  supposed  to  be  bishop  of  the  church  of  Lyons;  he  is 
sent  by  the  church  of  Lyons  on  a  message  to  the  bishop 
of  Rome;  when  notwithstanding  his  being  bishop  they  call 
h\\n  presbyter  of  that  church,  (when  there  were  other  pres- 
byters who  were  not  bishops,)  what  could  any  one  imagine 
by  the  reading  of  it,  but  that  the  bishop  was  nothing  else  but 
the  senior  presbyter,  or  one  that  had  a  primacy  of  order 
among,  but  no  divine  right  to  a  power  of  jurisdiction  over 
his  fellow  presbyters?     More  instances  of  this  nature   are 
brought  there  by  that  learned  author,  which  the  reader  may 
compare  with  the  answers,  and  then  let  him  judge  whether 
the  testimony  of  antiquity  has  not  too  much  ambiguity  in  it 
to  decide  the  controversy  clearly  on  either  side.     But  that 
which  seems  yet  more  material,  is,  that  which  we  observed  in 
the  third  place,  that  those  who  acknoialedge  the  superiority 
of  bishops  over  presbyters,  do  impute  it  to  an  act  of  the 
church,  and  do  not  ascribe  it  to   any  divine  institution. 
The  testimony  of  Jerome  to  this  purpose  is  well  known,  and 
hath  been  produced  already;  that  of  the  counterfeit  Jimbrose, 
but  true  Hilary,  is  in  every  one's  mouth  upon  this  controversy; 
"At  first  the  presbyters  were  called  bishops,  and  one  following 
succeeded  another  who  withdrew.     But  because  afterwards, 
presbyters  began  to  be  found  unworthy  to  hold  the  primacy, 
and  the  council  perceiving  that  not  the  '  order  of  rotation,'  but 
merit  determined  by  many  ministers  constituted  the  bishop, 
the  method  was  changed,  lest  an  unworthy  successor  'should 
rashly  usurp'  the  office,  and  be  an  offence  to  many."^    Very 

'  Quia  pritnum  presbyteri  episcopi  appellabantur,  ut  recedente  uno  sequens  ei 
43 


338  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

Strange  that  an  opinion  so  directly  contrary  to  the  divine  right 
of  episcopacy  should  be  pubUshed  by  a  deacon  of  the  church 
of  Rome,  and  these  commentaries  cited  by  Austin,  with  ap- 
plause of  the  person,  without  stigmatising  him  for  a  heretic 
with  Arius,  if  it  had  been  the  opinion  of  the  church,  that 
bishops  in  their  power  over  presbyters  did  succeed  the  apostles 
by  a  divine  right.  Nothing  more  clear,  than  that  he  asserts 
all  the  difference  between  a  bishop  and  presbyters  to  arise 
from  an  act  of  the  church  choosing  men  for  their  deserts, 
when  before  they  succeeded  in  order  of  place.  It  is  a  mistake 
of  BlondelVs,  to  attribute  this  to  the  Nicene  council;  doubt- 
less he  means  no  more  than  what  Hierom  calls  concilium 
presbyterorum,  or  which  he  himself  means  by  judicium 
sacerdotum.  The  testimony  of  Austin  hath  been  already 
mentioned.  "According  to  the  terms  of  honour,  which  now 
the  usage  of  the  church  hath  brought  about,  the  episcopacy  is 
superior  to  the  presbytery."^  Thereby  implying  it  was  not  so 
always;  else  to  what  purpose  serves  that  jam  obtimiit,  and 
that  the  original  of  the  difference  was  from  the  church?  But 
more  express  and  full  is  Isidore  himself  the  bishop  of  Seville, 
in  Spain,  speaking  of  presbyters.  "To  these,  as  to  the  bishops, 
a  dispensation  of  the  mysteries  of  God  hath  been  committed; 
for  they  preside  in  the  churches  of  Christ,  and  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  they  are  colleagues 
with  the  bishops.  Likewise  in  doctrine,  and  in  the  duty  of 
preaching  to  the  people;  but  on  account  of  authority,  the  ordi- 
nation of  the  clergy  has  been  reserved  to  the  chief  of  the  minis- 
terial order  only,  lest  the  discipline  of  the  church  being  claimed 
by  many,  might  dissolve  its  harmony,  and  occasion  offences."^ 
What  could  be  spoken  more  to  our  purpose  than  this  is?  he 
asserts  the  identity  of  power  as  well  as  name,  in  both  bishops 
and  presbyters  in  governing  the  church,  in  celebrating  the 
eucharist,  in  the  office  of  preaching  to  the  people,  only  for  the 


succederet;  sed  quia  cceperunt  sequentes  presbyteri  indigni  inveniri  ad  prima- 
tust  enendos,  mutata  est  ratio,  prospiciente  concilio,  ut  non  ordo,  sed  meritutn 
crearet  episcopum  multorum  sacerdotum  judicio  constitutum,  ne  indignus  temerd 
usurparet  et  esset  niultis  scandalum. — In  Eph.  4. 

1  Secundum  honorum  voca,bula  quae  jam  ecclesise  usus  obtinuit,  episcopatus 
presbyterio  major  est. 

2  His  sicut  episcopis  dispensatio  mysteriorum  Dei  commissa  est;  prsesunt  enim 
ecclesiis  Chrisli,  et  in  confectione  corporis  et  sanguinis  consortes  cum  episcopis 
sunt;  similiter  et  in  doctrina  populo  et  in  officio  prsedicandi,  sed  sola  propter 
auctoritatem  summo  sacerdoti  clericorum  ordinatio  reservata  est,  ne  k  multis 
ecclesicB  disciplina  vindicata,  concordiam  solveret,  scandala  generaret. — De  Ec- 
cles.  Ofiiciis,  1.  7,  cap.  7. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  339 

greater  honour  of  the  bishop,  and  for  preventing  schisms  iti 
the  church,  the  power  of  ordination  was  reserved  to  the  bishop. 
By  those  words  propter  auctoritatem,  lie  cannot  possibly  mean 
the  authority  of  a  divine  command, for  that  his  following  words 
contradict,  that  it  was  to  prevent  schisms  and  scandals,  and 
after  produceth  the  whole  place  of  Jerome  to  that  purpose. 
Agreeable  to  this,  is  the  judgment  of  the  second  council  of 
Seville,  in  Spain,  upon  the  occasion  of  the  irregular  proceeding 
of  some  presbyters  ordaitied  by  Agapius  bishop  of  Carduba. 
Their  words  are  these:  "  For  although  many  services  of  the 
ministry  are  common  to  them  with  the  bishops,  they  are 
aware  that  some  are  prohibited  to  them  by  new  ecclesiastical 
rules,  as  the  consecration  of  presbyters,  deacons  and  virgins. 
These  are  not  lawful  to  presbyters.  For  the  pontificate  itself 
hath  not  the  power,  which  by  the  authority  of  the  canons  is 
enjoined  as  due  to  the  bishops  only.  So  that  by  this,  and  the 
gradation  of  ranks,  the  elevation  and  dignity  of  the  pontiffs 
might  be  manifest."^  How  much  are  we  beholding  to  the 
ingenuity  of  a  Spanish  council,  that  doth  so  plainly  disavow 
the  pretence  of  any  divine  right  to  the  episcopacy  by  them  so 
strenuously  asserted?  All  the  right  they  plead  for,  is  from  the 
novelise  et  ecclesiasticse  regulse,  "  modern  ecclesiastic  rules," 
which  import  quite  another  thing  from  divine  institution;  and 
he  that  hath  not  learnt  to  distinguish  between  the  authority  of 
the  canons  of  the  church,  and  that  of  the  Scriptures,  will 
hardly  ever  understand  the  matter  under  debate  with  us:  and 
certainly  it  is  another  thing  to  preserve  the  honour  of  the  dif- 
ferent degrees  of  the  clergy,  but  especially  of  the  chief  among 
them,  viz.  the  bishop,  than  to  observe  a  thing  merely  out  of 
obedience  to  the  command  of  Christ,  and  upon  the  account  of 
divine  institution.  That  which  is  rejoined  in  answer  to  these 
testimonies,  as  far  as  I  can  learn,  is  only  this,  "that  the  council 
and  Isidore  followed  Jerome,  and  so  all  make  up  but  one  sin- 
gle testimony."  But  might  it  not  as  well  be  said,  that  all  that 
are  for  episcopacy  did  follow  Ignatius  or  Epiphanius,  and  so 
all  those  did  make  up  but  one  single  testimony  on  the  other 
side?    Yea,  I  do  as  yet  despair  of  finding  any  one  single  tes- 


1  Nam  quamvis  cum  episcopis  plurima  illis  ministeriorum  communis  sit  dis- 
pensatio,  qucedam  novellis  et  ecclesiasticis  regulis  sibi  prohibita  noverint,  sicut 
presbyterororum  et  diaconorum  et  virginum  consecratio,  «fec.  Hsec  enim  omnia 
illicita  esse  presbyteris,  quia  pontificatus  apicem  non  habent,  qui  solis  deberi 
episcopis  authoritate  canonum  prsecipitur:  ut  per  hoc  et  discretionem  graduum,  et 
dignitatis  fastigium  summi  pontificis  demonstratur. — Cone.  Hispal.  secundum 
decret.  7.  apud  B.  in  T.  4.  p.  560. 


340  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

timony  in  all  antiquity,  which  doth  in  plain  terms  assert  epis- 
copacy, as  it  was  settled  by  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church 
in  the  ages  following  the  apostles,  to  be  of  an  unalterable 
divine  right.  Some  expressions,  1  grant,  in  some  of  them 
seem  to  extol  episcopacy  very  high;  but  then  it  is  in  order  to 
the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church,  and  in  that  sense  they 
may  sometimes  be  admitted  to  call  it  divine  and  apos- 
tolical, not  in  regard  of  its  institution,  but  of  its  end,  in 
that  it  did,  in  their  opinion,  tend  as  much  to  preserve  the 
unity  of  the  church,  as  the  apostles'  power  did  over  the 
churches  while  they  were  living.  If  any  shall  meet  with  ex- 
pressions seeming  to  carry  the  fountain  of  episcopal  power 
higher,  let  them  remember  to  distinguish  between  the  power 
itself,  and  the  restrained  exercise  of  that  power;  the  former 
was  from  the  apostles,  but  common  to  all  dispensers  of  the 
word;  the  latter  was  appropriated  to  some,  but  by  an  act  of 
the  church,  whereby  an  eminency  of  power  was  attributed  to 
one,  for  the  safety  of  the  whole.  And  withal  let  them  con- 
sider, that  every  hyperbolical  expression  of  a  father  will  not 
bear  the  weight  of  an  argument,  and  how  common  it  was  to 
call  things  divine,  which  were  conceived  to  be  of  excellent 
use,  or  did  come  from  persons  in  authority  in  the  church.  One 
would  think  that  should  he  meet  with  ^stop  y^a/tma,  "a  divine 
letter,"  in  the  acts  of  the  council  of  Chalcedon,'  it  could  be 
rendered  by  nothing  short  of  the  scriptures:  whereas  they 
mean  no  more  by  it,  but  only  the  emperor's  letters  to  the 
council.  It  hath  been  already  observed  how  ready  they  were 
to  call  any  custom  of  the  church  before  their  times  an  apos- 
tolical tradition.  And  as  the  heathens,  when  they  had  any- 
thing which  they  knew  not  whence  it  came,  they  usually  called 
it  AkOTtetsi,'^  as  though  it  came  immediately  from  Heaven:  so 
the  fathers,  when  traditions  were  conveyed  to  them  without 
the  names  of  the  authors,  they  concluded  they  could  have  no 
other  fountain  but  the  apostles.  And  thus  we  see,  many  tradi- 
tions in  several  churches  directly  contrary  to  one  another, 
were  looked  on  as  apostolical,  only  from  the  prevalency  of 
this  persuasion,  that  whatever  they  derived  from  their  fathers, 
was  of  that  nature.  But  then  for  that  answer  to  the  council, 
and  Isidore,  and  Jerome,  that  they  make  but  one  testimony: 
I  say,  that  although  the  words  be  of  the  same  sense,  yet  they 
have  the  nature  of  a  different  testimony,  upon  these  accounts. 
First,  as  produced  by  persons  of  different  condition  in  the 

'  Cone.  Glial,  part  2,  act  1 1 .  2  Fallen  from  Jupiter. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  341 

church;  some  think  they  are  even  with  Jerome,  when  they  tell 
us  what  ?i  pique  there  was  between  him  and  John,  bishop  of 
Jerusalem;  and,  that  he  might  have  the  better  advantage  of 
his  adversary,  when  he  could  not  raise  himself  up  to  the 
honour  of  episcopacy,  he  would  bring  that  down  to  the  state 
of  presbytery;  but  as  such  entertain  too  unworthy  thoughts 
of  one  of  those  fathers,  whom  they  profess  themselves  ad- 
mirers of;  so  this  prejudice  cannot  possibly  lie  against  Isidore, 
or  the  council:  for  the  first  was  himself  a  bishop  of  no  mean 
account  in  the  church  of  God;  and  the  council  was  composed 
of  such;  it  could  be  no  bias  then  of  that  nature  could  draw 
them  to  this  opinion:  and  no  doubt  they  would  have  been  as 
forward  to  maintain  their  own  authority  in  the  church,  as 
truth  and  conscience  would  give  them  leave.     Therefore  on 
this  account  one  testimony  of  a  single  bishop,  much  more  of  a 
whole  council  of  them,  against  their  acting  by  divine  authority 
in  the  church,  is  of  more  validity  than  ten  for  it;  inasmuch  as 
it  cannot  but  be  in  reason  supposed  that  none  will  speak  any- 
thing against  the  authority  they  are  in,  or  what  may  tend  in 
the  least  to  diminish  it,  but  such  as  make  more  conscience  of 
the  truth,  than  of  their  own  credit  and  esteem  in  the  world. 
Secondly,  in  that  it  was  done  in  different  ages  of  the  church: 
Jerome  flourished  about  380.     Isidore  succeeded  Leander 
in  Seville,  600.     The  council  sat,  619.    The  council  of  Aquen 
which  transcribes  Isidore,  and  owns  his  doctrine,  816.     So 
that  certainly  supposing  the  words  of  all  to  be  the  same,  yet 
the  testimony  is  of  greater  force,  as  it  was  owned  in  several 
ages  of  the  church,  by  whole  councils,  without  any  the  least 
control  that  we  read  of     And  if  this  then  must  not  be  looked 
on  as  the  sense  of  the  church  at  that  time,  I  know  not  how 
we  can  come  to  understand  it.     If  what  is  positively  main- 
tained by  different  persons  in  different  ages  of  the  church,  and 
in  different  places  without  any  opposing  it  by  writers  of  those 
ages,  or  condemning  it  by  councils,  may  not  be  conceived  to 
be  the  sense  of  the  church  at  that  time.     So  that  laying  all 
these  things  together,  we  may  have  enough  to  conclude  the 
ambiguity  at  least,  and  thereby  incompetency  of  the  testi- 
mony of  antiquity  for  finding  out  the  certain  form  which  the 
apostles  observed  in  planting  churches. 

§  IS.  We  proceed  to  the  third  thing  to  show  the  incompe- 
tency of  antiquity  for  deciding  this  controversy,  which  will 
be  from  the  partiality  of  the  testimony  brought  from  thence. 
Two  things  will  sufficiently  manifest  the  partiality  of  the 
judgment  of  antiquity  in  this  case.     First,  their  apparent 


342  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

judging  of  the  practice  of  the  first  primitive  church,  according 
to  the  customs  of  their  own.  Secondly/,  their  stiff  and  perti- 
nacious adhering  to  private  traditions  contrary  to  one  another, 
and  both  sides  maintaining  theirs  as  apostohcai.  First,  judg- 
ing the  practice  of  the  apostles  by  that  of  their  oivn  times; 
as  is  evident  by  Theodor^et,  and  the  rest  of  the  Greek  commen- 
tators, assigning  that  as  the  reason  why  the  presbyters  spoken 
of  in  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  were  not  bisliops  in 
the  sense  of  their  age,  because  there  could  be  but  one  bishop 
in  a  city,  whereas  there  are  more  expressed  in  those  pteces, 
as  being  in  the  several  cities:  and  this  is  denied  of  aposiplical 
times  by  the  late  pleaders  for  episcopacy;  and  it  is  3^id  of 
them,  that  they  spoke  according  to  the  custom  of  their  own 
time.  Again,  it  is  now  thought  there  were  two  bishops  in 
apostolical  times  in  several  cities:  the  one  the  head  of  the 
Jewish  coetus,  "assembly,"  and  the  other  of  the  Gentile.  I 
enter  not  the  dispute  here,  whether  it  was  so  or  not,  only  I 
hence  prove,  how  far  those  persons  themselves  who  plead  for 
the  judgment  of  the  fathers  as  deciding  this  controversy,  are 
from  thinking  them  impartial  judges,  when  as  to  the  grounds 
of  their  sentence  they  are  confessed  to  speak  only  of  the  prac- 
tice of  their  own  time.  Who  can  imagine  any  force  in  Chry- 
sostom^s  argument,  "that  the  presbyters  who  laid  hands  on 
Timothy  must  needs  be  bishops,  because  none  do  ordain  in 
the  church,  but  bishops,"  unless  he  makes  this  the  m,edium  of 
his  argument.  That  whatever  was  the  practice  of  the  church 
in  his  days,  was  so  in  apostolical  times.  There  is,  I  know  not 
what  strange  influence  in  a  received  custom,  if  generally  em- 
braced, that  doth  possess  men  with  a  fancy,  it  was  never 
otherwise  than  it  is  with  them;  nay,  when  they  imagine  the 
necessity  of  such  a  custom  at  preseijt  in  the  church  they  pre- 
sently think  it  could  never  be  otherwise  than  it  is.  But  of 
this  I  have  spoken  somewhat  already.  Secondly,  that  which 
makes  it  appear  how  partial  the  judgment  of  antiquity  is,  in 
adhering  to  their  particular  traditions,  and  calling  them 
apostolical,  though  contrary  to  one  another.  How  can  we 
then  fix  on  the  testimony  of  antiquity  as  anything  certain  or 
impartial  in  this  case?  when  it  hath  been  found  so  evidently 
partial  in  a  case  of  less  concern  than  this  is,  A  witness  that 
hath  once  betrayed  his  faithfulness  in  the  open  court,  will 
hardly  have  his  evidence  taken  in  a  case  of  moment,  especially 
when  the  cause  must  stand  or  fall  according  to  his  single  tes- 
timony. For  my  part,  I  see  not  how  any  man  that  would  see 
reason  for  what  he  doth,  can  adhere  to  the  church  for  an  un- 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  343 

questix)nable  tradition  received  from  the  apostles;  when  in  the 
case  of  keeping  Easter,  whether  with  the  Jews  on  the  four- 
teenth moon,  or  only  on  the  Lord's  day,  there  was  so  niucli 
unreasonable  heat  showed  on  both  sides,  and  such  confidence, 
that  on  either  side  their  tradition  was  apostohcah  the  story 
of  which  is  related  by  Eusebius^  and  Socrates,'''  and  many 
others.  They  had  herein  all  the  advantages  imaginable  in 
order  to  the  knowing  the  certainty  of  the  thing  then  in  ques- 
tion among  them.  As  their  nearness  to  apostolical  times, 
being  but  one  remove  from  them:  yea  the  persons  contending 
pleaded  personal  acquaintance  with  some  of  the  apostles  them- 
selves, as  Polycarp  with  John,  and  Anicetus  of  Rome,  that 
he  had  his  tradition  from  St.  Peter;  and  yet  so  great  were  the 
heats,  so  irreconcilable  the  controversy,  that  they  proceeded 
to  dart  the  thunderbolt  of  excommunication  in  one  another's 
faces;  as  Victor,  with  more  zeal  than  piety,  threw  presently 
the  Asiatic  churches  all  out  of  communion,  only  for  differing 
as  to  this  tradition.  The  small  coals  of  this  fire  kindled  a 
whole  ^tna  of  contention  in  the  Christian  world,  the  smoke 
and  ashes,  nay  the  flames  of  which,  by  the  help  of  the  prince 
of  air,  were  blown  over  into  the  bosom  of  the  then  almost 
infant  northern  churches  of  Britain,  where  a  solemn  dispute 
was  caused  upon  this  quarrel  between  Colmannns  on  one 
side,  and  Wilfride  on  the  other.  The  like  contest  was  upon 
this  occasion  between  Augustine  the  monk,  and  the  British 
bishops.  The  observation  of  this  strange  combustion  in 
the  primitive  church  upon  the  account  of  so  vain,  frivolous, 
unnecessary  a  thing  as  this  was,  drew  this  note  from  a 
learned  and  judicious  man,  formerly  quoted,  in  his  Tract 
of  Schism:  "By  this  we  may  plainly  set  the  danger  of  our 
appeal  to  antiquity,  for  resolution  in  controverted  points  of 
faith.  0  how  small  relief  are  we  to  expect  from  thence!  For  if 
the  discretion  of  the  chiefest  guides  and  directors  of  the  church 
did  in  a  point  so  trivial,  so  inconsiderable,  so  mainly  fail  them, 
as  not  to  see  the  truth  in  a  subject,  wherein  it  is  the  greater 
marvel  how  they  could  avoid  the  sight  of  it;  can  we,  without 
the  imputation  of  great  grossness  and  folly,  think  so  poor 
spirited  persons,  competent  judges  of  the  question  now  on  foot 
betwixt  the  churches?"  Thus  that  person,  as  able  to  make 
the  best  improvement  of  the  fathers  as  any  of  those  who  pro- 
fess themselves  the  most  superstitious  admirers  of  antiquity. 
But  if  we  must  stand  to  the  judgment  of  the  fathers,  let  us 

>  Eccles.  Hist.  I.  5,  c.  25.  2  Socrat.  1. 15,  c.  21. 


344  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

Stand  to  it  in  this,  that  no  tradition  is  any  further  to  be  em- 
braced, than  as  it  is  founded  on  the  word  of  God.  For  which 
purpose  those  words  of  Cypria-n}  are  very  observable.  He 
asserts  it  "  an  easy  matter  for  truly  religious  and  plain-hearted 
men  to  lay  aside  their  error,  and  to  find  out  the  truth,  which 
is  by  returning  to  the  head  and  spring  of  divine  tradition,"^ 
viz.  the  scriptures;  which  he  expresseth  further,  with  an  ele- 
gant similitude.  His  meaning  is,  "That  as  when  a  channel 
suddenly  fails,  we  presently  inquire  where  and  how  the  breach 
was  made,  and  look  to  the  spring  and  fountain,  to  see  the 
waters  be  fully  conveyed  from  thence,  as  formerly:  so  upon 
any  failure  in  the  tradition  of  the  church,  our  only  recourse 
must  be  to  the  true  fountain  of  tradition  the  word  of  God,  and 
ground  the  reason  of  our  action  upon  that  which  was  the 
foundation  of  our  profession."^  And  when  Stephen  the  bishop 
of  Rome  would  tether  him  to  tradition,  Cyprian  keeps  his 
liberty  by  this  close  question:  "  Whence  is  that  tradition?  or 
came'it  descending  from  our  Lord's  authority  and  the  evan- 
gelists, or  from  the  mandates  of  the  apostles  and  their  epistles? 
— But  if  it  be  enjoined  either  in  the  epistles  or  acts  of  the 
apostles,  let  that  divine  and  holy  tradition  be  observed."^  We 
see  this  good  man  would  not  balk  his  way  on  foot  for  the 
great  bugbear  of  tradition,  unless  it  did  bear  the  character  of  a 
divine  truth  in  it,  and  could  produce  the  credentials  of  scrip- 
ture to  testify  its  authority  to  him.  To  the  same  purpose  that 
stout  bishop  of  Cappadocia,  Firmilian,  whose  unhappiness 
with  Cyprian,  was  only  that  of  Job''s  friends,  that  they  ex- 
cellently managed  a  bad  cause,  and  with  far  more  of  the  spirit 

1  Cyprian,  ep.  47,  n.  13. 

2  In  compendio  est  aulern  apud  religiosas  et  simplices  mentes,  ct  errorem  de- 
ponere,  et  invenire  atque  eruere  veritatem:  nam  si  ad  divine  traditionis  caput  et 
originem  revertamur,  cessat  error  hunaanus. 

3  Si  canalis  aquam  ducens,  qui  copiose  prius  et  largiter  profluebat,  subito 
deficiat,  nonne  ad  fontem  pergitur  ut  illic  defectionis  ratio  noscatur,  utrumne 
arescentibus  venis,  in  capite  unda  siccaverit;  an  ver5  Integra  delude  et  plena 
procurrens,  in  medio  itinere  destiterit?  ut  si  vitio  interrupti  aut  bibuli  eanalis 
effeclum  est,  qu6  minus  aqua  continua  perseveranter  et  jugiter  flucret,  refecto  et 
confirmato  canali  ad  usum  atque  ad  potum  civitatis  aqua  collecta  eadem  ubertate 
atque  integritate  repraesentaretur,  qua  de  fonte  proficiscitur.  duod  et  nunc  facere 
oportet  Dei  sacerdotes  praecepta  divina  servantes,  ut  si  in  aliquo  mutaverit  (1.  nu- 
laverit)  et  vacillaverit  Veritas,  ad  originem  Dominicam,  et  evangelicam,  et  apos- 
tolicam  traditionem  revertamur,  et  inde  surgat  actus  nostri  ratio,  unde  et  ordo  et 
origo  surrexit. — lb.  n.  14. 

4  Undo  ilia  traditio?  utrumne  de  Dominica  et  evangelica  auctoritate  descen- 
dens,  an  de  apostolorum  mandatis  atque  epistolis  veniens. — Si  ergo  aut  evangelis 
prsecipitur,  aut  in  apostolorum  epistolis,  aut  actibus  continetur — observetur  divina 
haec  et  sancta  traditio. 


FORMS  OF  CHUKCH  GOVERNMENT.  345 

of  Christianity,^  than  Stephen  did,  who  was  to  be  justified  in 
nothing  but  the  truth  he  defended,  "To  follow  them  at  Rome, 
is  not  to  observe  those,  which  have  in  all  churches  been 
handed  over  from  the  beginning,  and  then  in  vain  it  would  be 
to  offer  the  pretext  of  apostolical  authority,"^  which  he  there 
makes  out  at  large,  viz.  that  the  church  of  Rome  had  gathered 
corruption  betimes,  which  after  broke  out  into  an  impostume 
in  the  head  oiii.  Where  then  must  we  find  the  certain  way 
of  resolving  the  controversy  we  are  upon?  The  scriptures 
determine  it  not;  the  fathers  tell  us  there  is  no  believing  tra- 
dition any  further  than  it  is  founded  on  scripture;  thus  are  we 
sent  back  from  one  to  the  other,  till  at  last  we  conclude  there 
is  no  certain  way  at  all  left  to  find  out  a  decision  of  it.  Not 
tliat  we  are  left  at  such  uncertainties  as  to  matters  of  faith,  (1 
would  not  be  so  mistaken.)  We  have  Archimedes'  postula- 
tum^  granted  us  for  that,  a  place  to  fix  our  faith  on,  though 
the  world  be  moved  out  of  its  place,  1  mean  the  undoubted 
word  of  God:  but  as  to  matters  of  fact  not  clearly  revealed  in 
scripture,  no  certainty  can  be  had  of  them,  from  the  hover- 
ing light  of  unconstant  tradition.  Neither  is  it  only  uncon- 
stant,  but  in  many  things  repugnant  to  itself,  which  was  the 
last  consideration  to  be  spoken  to,  in  reference  to  the  showing 
the  incompetency  of  antiquity  for  deciding  our  controversy. 
Well,  then,  suppose  we  ourselves  now  waiting  for  the  final 
verdict  of  church  tradition  to  determine  our  present  cause;  if 
the  ju?y  cannot  agree,  we  are  as  far  from  satisfaction  as  ever; 
and  this  is  certainly  the  case  we  are  now  in.  The  main  diffi- 
culty lies  in  the  immediate  succession  to  the  apostles:  if  that 
were  but  once  cleared,  we  might  bear  with  interruptions 
afterwards:  but  the  main  seat  of  the  controversy  lies  there, 
whether  the  apostles  upon  their  withdrawing  from  the  govern- 
ment of  churches  did  substitute  single  persons  to  succeed  them 
or  not;  so  that  unless  that  be  cleared,  the  very  deed  of  gift  is 
questioned:  and  if  that  could  be  made  appear,  all  other  things 
would  speedily  follow.  Yes,  sa^/  some,  that  is  clear:  for  at 
Jerusalem,  Antioch,  and  Rome,  it  is  evident  that  single  per- 
sons were  entrusted  with  the  government  of  churches.  In 
Jerusalem,  say  they,  James  the   brother  of  our  Lord,  was 

'  Stillingfleet's  meaning  here  demands  investigation. 

2  Eos  autem,  saith  Firmilian,  qui  Romse  sunt,  non  ea  in  omnibus  observare 
quEB  silit  ab  origins  tradita,  et  frustra  apostolorurn  auctoritatem  praetendere. — 
Firmil.  ep.  inter  ep.  Cyprian.  75,  n.  5. 

^  Ao;  woo  a-Tiw,  xaj  t»iv  yw  xtvutra),  "  give  me  whereon  to  stand,  and  I  will  shake 
the  earth." 
44 


346  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

made  bishop  by  the  apostles:  but  whence  doth  that  appear? 
It  is  said  from  Hegesippus  in  Eusebius}     But  what  if  he  say 
no  such  thing?  his  words  are  these,  hiahtxitai.i  triv  sxxuaiav  (itta 
iav  o.7io^o%ov,  which  is  there  interpreted,  Ecclesix  administra- 
tionem  una  cum  cseteris  apostolis  suscepit,  "  he  received  the 
administration  of  the  church  together  with  the  rest  of  the 
apostles."  And  no  more  is  thereby  meant,  but  that  this  James 
who  is  by  the  ancients  conceived  to  be  only  a  disciple  before, 
is  now  taken  into  a  higher  charge;  and  invested  in  a  power 
of  governing  the  chiu'ch  as  the  apostles  were.     His  power,  it 
is  plain,  was  of  the  same  nature  with  that  of  the  apostles 
themselves:  and  who  will  go  about  to  degrade  them  so  much 
as  to  reduce  them  to  the  office  of  ordinary  bishops?    James  in 
probability  did  exercise  his  apostleship  the  most  at  Jerusalem, 
where  by  the  scriptures  we  find  him  resident,  and  from  hence 
the  church  afterwards,  because  of  his  not  travelling  abroad 
as  the  other  apostles  did,  according  to  the  language  of  their 
own  times,  fixed  the  title  of  bishop  upon  him.     But  greater 
difference  we  shall  find  in  those  who  are  pleaded  for,  as  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles.     At  Antioch  some,  as   Origen  and 
Eusebius,  make  Ignatius  to  succeed  Peter;  Jerome  makes 
him  the  third  bishop,  and  placeth  Euodius  before  him.  Others 
therefore  to  solve  that,  make  them  cotemporary  bishops;  the 
one  of  the  church  of  the  Jews,  the  other  of  the  Gentiles:  with 
what  congruity  to  their  hypothesis  of  a  single  bishop  and  dea- 
cons placed  in  every  city,  I  know  not:  but  that  salvo  hath 
been  discussed  before.^     Come  we  therefore  to  Rome,  and 
here  the  succession  is  as  muddy  as  the  Tiber  itself;  for  here 
Tertullian,  Rujinus,  and  several  others  place  Clement  next 
to  Peter;  Irenscus  and  Eusebius  set  Anacletus  before  him; 
Epiphanius  and  Optatus  both  Anacletus  and  Cletus;  Jlu- 
gustinus  and  Damasus  with  others,  make  Anacletus,  Cletus, 
and  Linus,  all  to  precede  him.     What  way  shall  we  find  to 
extricate  ourselves  out  of  this  labyrinth,  so  as  to  reconcile  it 
with  the  certainty  of  the  form  of  government  in  the  apostles' 
times?     Certainly,  if  the  line  of  succession  fail  us  here,  when 
we  most  need  it,  we  have  little  cause  to  pin  our  faith  upon 
it  as  to  the  certainty  of  any  particular  form  of  church  govern- 
ment settled  in  the  apostles'  times,  that  can  be  drawn  from 
the  help  of  the  records  of  the  primitive  church:  which  must 
be  first  cleared  of  all  defectiveness,  aynbiguity ,j)artiality,  and 
confusion;  before  the  thing  we  inquire  for  can  be  extracted 
out  of  them. 

>  Hist  Eccl.  1.  2,  cap.  22.  2  y.  Migdeburg.  Cent.  1, 1.  2,  c.  10. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  347 

§  19.  Having  thus  far  shown  that  we  have  no  absohite 
certainty  of  what  form  of  government  was  settled  by  the 
apostles  in  the  several  churches  of  their  plantation:  The  next 
consideration  which  follows  to  be  spoken  of,  is,  that  the 
apostles  in  probability  did  not  observe  any  one  fixed  course 
of  settling  the  government  of  churches,  but  settled  it  accord- 
ing to  the  several  circumstances  of  places  and  persons  which 
they  had  to  deal  with.  This  will  be  ex  abundanti,  "  more 
than  sufficient,"  as  to  the  thing  by  me  designed,  which  could 
be  sufficiently  cleared  without  this:  and  therefore  I  lay  it  not 
as  the  foundation  of  my  thesis,  but  only  as  a  doctrine  of  pro- 
bability, which  may  serve  to  reconcile  the  controversies  on 
foot  about  church  government.  For  if  this  be  miade  appear, 
tlien  it  may  be  both  granted  that  the  apostles  did  settle  the 
government  in  the  church  in  a  college  of  presbyters,  and  in  a 
bishop  and  deacons  too,  according  to  the  diversity  of  places, 
and  the  variety  of  circumstances.  It  is  easy  to  observe,  that 
as  to  rites  and  customs  in  the  church,  the  original  of  most 
men's  mistakes,  is,  concluding  that  to  be  the  general  practice 
of  the  church,  which  they  meet  with  in  some  places:  whereas 
that  is  most  true  which  Firmiliam  tells  us:  "In  most  provinces, 
many  things  were  varied  according  to  the  diversity  of  places 
and  characters:  nevertheless,  the  catholic  churches  did  not,  on 
this  account,  swerve  from  peace  and  unity;"^  so,  as  to  matter 
of  government,  men's  mistakes  do  arise  from  an  universal 
conclusion  deduced  out  of  particular  premises;  and  what  they 
think  was  done  in  one  place,  they  conclude  must  be  done  in 
all;  whereas  these  are  the  grounds  inducing  me  probably  to 
conclude  that  they  observed  not  the  same  course  in  all  places; 
which,  when  an  impartial  reader  hath  soberly  considered, 
(with  what  hath  gone  before,)  I  am  in  hopes,  the  novelty  of 
this  opinion  may  not  prejudice  its  entertainment  with  him. 
My  grounds  are  these:  first,  from  the  different  state,  con- 
dition and  quantity  of  the  churches  planted  by  the  apostles. 
Secondly,  from,  the  multitude  of  unfixed  officers  in  the 
church  then,  who  acted  with  authority  over  the  church 
tvhere  they  were  resident.  Thirdly,  from  the  different  cus- 
toms observed  in  several  churches,  as  to  their  government 
after  the  apostles^  decease.  I  begin  with  the  first,  the  differ- 
ent state,  condition,  and  quantity  of  the  churches  planted 


1  In  plurimis  provinciis,  raulta  pro  locorum  et  nominum,  (1.  hominum)  diver- 
sitate,  variantur;  nee  tamen  propter  hoc  ab  ecclesiae  catholicse  pace  atq  unitate 
discessum  est. — Cypr.  Ep.  75,  n.  5. 


348  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

hy  the  apostles,  for  which  we  are  to  consider  these  things: 
first,  that  God  did  not  give  the  apostles  alike  success  of  their 
labours  in  all  places;  secondly,  that  a  small  number  of  be- 
lievers did  not  require  the  same  number  which  a  great  church 
did,  to  teach  and  govern  them;  thirdly,  that  the  apostles  did 
settle  church  officers  according  to  the  probability  of  increase 
of  believers,  and  in  order  thereto,  in  some  great  places.    First, 
that  God  did  not  give  the  apostles  equal  success  to  their  la- 
bours in  all  places.     After  God  called  them  to  be  fishers  of 
men,  it  was  not  every  draught  which  filled  their  net  with 
whole  shoals  of  fishes;  sometimes  they  might  toil  all  night 
still  and  catch  nothing,  or  very  little.     It  was  not  every  ser- 
mon of  Feter^s  which  converted  three  thousand:  the  whole 
world  might  at  that  rate  soon  have  become  Christian,  although 
there  had  been  but  few  preachers  besides  the  apostles.     God 
gave  them  strange  success  at  first,  to  encourage  them  the  bet- 
ter to  meet  with  difficulties  afterwards;  in  some  places  God 
told  them  he  had  much  people,  in  others  we  read  but  of  few 
that  believed,   "At  Corinth,  Fanl  plants,  and  ^polios  waters, 
and  God  gives  an  abundant  increase;"  but  at  Athens,  (where, 
if  moral  dispositions  had  fitted  men  for  grace,  and  the  improve- 
ments of  nature,  we  might  have  expected  the  greatest  num- 
ber of  converts,)  yet  here   we  read  of  many  mocking,  and 
others  delajnng,  and  but  of  very  few  believing:^  Dionysius 
and  Damaris,  and  some  others  with  them.     The  plantations 
of  the  apostles  were  very  difterent,  not  from  the  nature  of  the 
soil  they  had  to  deal  with,  but  from  the  different  influence  of 
the  divine  spirit  upon  their  endeavours  in  several   places. 
We  cannot  think  that  the  church  at  Cenchrea,^  (for  so  it  is 
called,)  was  as  well  stocked  with  believers  as  that  at  Corinth. 
Nay,  the  churches  generally  in  the  apostles'  times  were  not 
so  filled  with  numbers,  as  men  are  apt  to  imagine.  I  can  as  soon 
hope  to  find  in  apostohcal  times  flf^oce,sa?^  churches  as  classical 
aud  proviiicial;  but  this  doth  not  much  advantage  the  princi- 
ples of  the  congregational  men,  as  I  have  already  demon- 
strated.^    Yet  I  do  not  think  that  all  churches  in  the  apostles' 
times  were  only  one  congregation;  but  as  there  were  in  cities 
many  synagogues,  so  there  might  be  many  churches  out  of 
those  synagogues  enjoying  their  former  liberties  and  privileges. 
And  they  that  will  show  me  where  five  thousand  Jews  and 
more  did  ordinarily  meet  in  one  of  their  synagogues  for  public 

'  Acts  xvii.  34.  2  Rom.  xvi.  1. 

3  Php.  1,  ch,  6,  s.  8,  p.  129. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  349 

worship,  may  gain  sometiiing  upon  me,  in  order  to  believing 
the  church  of  Jerusalem  to  be  but  one  congregation,  and  yet 
not  persuade  me,  till  they  have  made  it  appear  that  the  Chris- 
tians then  had  as  puhUc  solemn  set  meetings  as  the  Jews  had, 
which  he  that  understands  the  state  of  the  churches  at  that 
time,  will  hardly  yield  to  the  belief  of.  I  confess,  I  cannot  see 
any  rule  in  scripture  laid  down  for  distributing  congregations: 
but  this  necessity  would  put  them  upon,  and  therefore  it  were 
needless  to  prescribe  them;  and  very  little,  if  any,  reason  can  I 
see  on  the  other  side,  why,  where  there  were  so  much  people 
as  to  make  distinct  congregations,  they  must  make  distinct 
churches  from  one  another;  but  of  that  largely  in  the  next  chap- 
ter. All  churches  then,  we  see,  were  not  of  an  equal  extent. 
The  second  premiss  will  grant,  viz.  that  a  small  church  did  not 
require  the  same  number  of  officers  to  rule  it,  which  a  great 
one  did.  For  the  duty  of  officers  lying  in  reference  to  the 
people,  where  the  people  was  but  few,  one  constant  settled 
officer  with  deacons  under  him,  might  with  as  much  ease  dis- 
charge the  work,  as  in  a  numerous  church,  the  joint  help  of 
many  officers  was  necessary  to  carry  on.  The  same  reason 
which  tells  us  that  a  large  flock  of  sheep  consisting  of  many 
thousands  doth  call  for  many  shepherds  to  attend  them,  dotii 
likewise  tell  us  that  a  small  flock  may  be  governed  with  the 
care  of  one  single  shepherd  watching  continually  over  them. 
The  third  premiss  was  that  in  great  cities  the  apostles  did  not 
only  respect  the  present  guidance  of  those  that  were  converted, 
buj;  established  such  as  might  be  useful  for  the  converting  and 
bringing  in  of  others  to  the  faith,  who  were  as  yet  strangers 
to  the  covenant  of  promise  and  aliens  from  the  Ho'Ki-esta, 
^^ polity^'  or  society  of  Christia)is.  And  here  I  conceive  a 
mistake  of  some  men  lies,  when  they  think  the  apostles  re- 
spected only  the  ruling  of  those  who  were  already  converted; 
for  though  this  were  one  part  of  their  work,  yet  they  had  an 
eye  to  the  main  design  then  on  foot,  the  subjecting  the  world 
to  the  obedience  of  faith;  in  order  to  which  it  was  necussary 
in  places  of  great  resort  and  extent,  to  place  not  only  such  as 
might  be  sufficient  to  superintend  the  affairs  of  the  church, 
but  such  as  might  lay  out  themselves  the  most  in  preaching 
the  gospel  in  order  to  converting  others.  Having  laid  down 
these  things  by  way  of  premisal,  we  shall  see  what  advantage 
we  can  make  of  them  in  order  to  our  purpose.  First,  then  I 
say,  that  in  churches  consisting  of  a  small  number  of  be- 
lievers, where  there  loas  no  great  probability  of  a  large 
increase  afterwards:  one  single  pastor  with  deacons  under 


350  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

him,  ivas  only  constituted  by  the  apostles  for  the  ruling  of 
those  churches.  Where  the  work  was  not  so  great,  but  a 
pastor  and  deacons  might  do  it,  what  need  was  there  of  having 
more?  and  in  the  great  scarcity  of  fit  persons  for  settled  rulers 
then,  and  the  great  multitude  and  necessity  of  unfixed  officers 
for  preaching  the  gospel  abroad,  many  persons  fit  for  that 
work  could  not  be  spared  to  be  constantly  resident  upon  a 
place.  Now  that  in  some  places  at  first  there  were  none 
placed  but  only  a  pastor  and  deacons,  I  shall  confirm  by  these 
following  testimonies.  The  first  is  that  of  Clement  in  his 
epistle:  "The  apostles  therefore  preaching  abroad  through 
countries  and  cities,  ordained  the  first  fruits  of  such  as  believed, 
having  proved  them  by  the  spirit,  to  be  bishops  and  deacons 
for  them  that  should  afterwards  believe."^  Whether  by  ;j:«ga(- 
we  understand  villages  or  regions,  is  not  material;  for  it  is 
certain  here  the  author  takes  it  as  distinct  from  cities;  and 
there  is  nothing,  I  grant,  expressed  where  the  apostles  did 
place  bishops  and  deacons  exclusive  of  other  places,  i.  e. 
whether  only  in  cities  or  countries;  but  it  is  evident  by  this, 
that  wherever  they  planted  churches,  they  ordained  bishops 
and  deacons,  whether  those  churches  were  in  the  city  or 
country.  And  here  we  find  no  other  officers  settled  in  those 
churches,  but  bishops  and  deacons;  and  that  there  was  no 
more  in  those  churches  than  he  speaks  of,  appears  from  his 
design  of  paralleling  the  church  officers  in  the  gospel,  to  those 
under  the  law:  and  therefore  it  was  here  necessary  to  enume- 
rate all  that  were  then  in  the  churches.  The  main  controversy 
is,  what  these  bishops  were;  whether  many  in  one  place;  or 
only  one;  and  if  but  one,  whether  a  bishop  in  the  modern  sense 
or  not.  For  the  first,  here  is  nothing  implying  any  necessity  of 
having  more  than  one  in  a  place,  which  will  further  be  made 
appear  by  and  by,  out  of  other  testimonies  which  will  help  to 
explain  this.  As  for  the  other  thing,  we  must  divide  the  notion 
of  a  bishop:  for  he  is  either  such  a  one  as  hath  none  over  him 
in  the  church;  or  he  is  such  a  one  as  hath  a  power  over  pres- 
byters acting  under  him,  and  by  authority  derived  from  him. 
If  we  take  it  in  the  first  sense,  so  every  pastor  of  a  church 
having  none  exercising  jurisdiction  over  him,  is  a  bishop;  and 
so  every  such  single  pastor  in  the  churches  of  th6  primitive 
times  was  a  bishop  in  this  sense,  as  every  master  of  a  family 
before  societies  for  government  were  introduced,  might  be 

•  Kara  ^ftipaj  ouv  nai  itoKiii  Kn^va-irovrig,  KaQi^avov  rat  a.'srafxa.i;  ttvram  ^Kifxaa-ctretf 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  351 

called  a  king,  because  he  had  none  above  him  to  command 
him:  but  if  we  take  a  bishop  in  the  more  proper  sense,  for  one 
that  hath  power  over  presbyters  and  people,  such  a  one  these 
single  pastors  were  not,  could  not  be.  For  it  is  supposed  that 
these  were  only  single  pastors.  But  then  it  is  said  that  after 
other  presbyters  were  appointed,  then  these  single  pastors 
were  properly  bishops;  but  to  that  I  answer:  First,  they 
could  not  be  proper  bishops  by  virtue  of  their  first  constitu- 
tion; for  then  they  had  no  power  over  any  presbyters,  but 
only  over  the  deacons  and  people;  and  therefore  it  would  be 
well  worth  considering  how  a  power  of  jurisdiction  over  pres- 
byters can  be  derived,  from  those  single  pastors  of  churches, 
that  had  no  presbyters  joined  with  them.  It  must  be  then 
clearly  and  evidently  proved  that  it  was  the  apostle's  intention 
that  these  single  pastors  should  have  the  power  over  presby- 
ters, when  the  church's  necessity  did  require  their  help,  which 
intention  must  be  evinced  and  declared  by  some  manifestation 
of  it  as  a  law  of  Christ,  or  nothing  can  thence  be  deduced  of 
perpetual  concern  to  the  church  of  Christ.  Secondly,  either 
they  were  bishops  before,  or  only  after  the  appointment  of 
presbyters;  if  before,  then  a  bishop,  and  a  presbyter  having 
no  bishop  over  him,  are  all  one;  if  after  only,  then  it  was  by 
his  communicating  power  to  presbyters  to  be  such,  or  their 
choice  which  made  him  their  bishop;  if  the  first,  then  presby- 
ters quoad  ordinem,  "as  to  the  order,"  are  only  a  human 
institution,  it  being  acknowledged  that  no  evidence  can  be 
brought  from  scripture  for  them;  and  for  any  act  of  the 
apostles  not  recorded  in  scripture  for  the  constituting  of  them, 
it  must  go  among  unwritten  traditions;  and  if  that  be  a  law 
still  binding  the  church,  then  there  are  such  which  occur  not 
in  the  word  of  God,  and  so  that  must  be  an  imperfect  copy 
of  divine  laws.  If  he  were  made  bishop  by  an  act  of  the 
presbyters,  then  presbyters  have  power  to  make  a  bishop,  and 
so  episcopacy  is  a  human  institution,  depending  upon  the  vo- 
luntary act  of  presbyters.  But  the  clearest  evidence  for  one 
single  pastor  with  deacons  in  some  churches  at  the  beginning 
of  Christianity,  is  that  of  Epiphanius,  which,  though  some- 
what large,  I  shall  recite,  because,  if  I  mistake  not,  the  cur- 
tailing of  this  testimony  hath  made  it  speak  otherwise  than 
ever  Epiphanius  meant.  The  sense  of  Epiphanius  is  very 
intricate  and  obscure;  we  shall  endeavour  to  explain  it.  He  is 
giving  Jirius  an  account  why  Paul  in  his  epistle  to  Timothy 
mentions  only  bishops  and  deacons,  and  passeth  over  pres- 
byters.    His  account  is  this:  "First  he  chargeth  Arius  with 


352  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

ignorance  of  the  series  of  history,  (which  he  calls  a^coj^ou^ia  r'aj 
axj]9siai,y  and  the  profound  and  ancient  records  of  the  church, 
wherein  it  is  expressed,  that  upon  the  first  preaching  of  the 
gospel,  the  apostle  wrote  according  to  the  present  state  of 
things.  Where  bishops  not  yet  appointed,  (for  so  certainly  it 
should  be  read  ohov  fiyj  rjaav  sTtcaxortoi,  not  6aov  iA.iv,  for  then  he 
must  contradict  himself)  The  apostle  writes  to  bishops  and 
deacons,  (for  the  apostles  could  not  settle  all  things  at  first;) 
for  there  was  a  necessity  of  presbyters  and  deacons;  for  by 
these  two  orders  all  ecclesiastical  offices  might  be  performed: 
"for  where  (so  I  read  it  otsovya^,  not  uftov  Ss,  as  the  sense  clearly 
carries  it,)  there  was  not  found  any  worthy  of  being  a  bishop, 
the  place  remained  without  one.  But  where  necessity  re- 
quired one,  and  there  were  some  found  fit  for  that  office, 
there  some  were  ordained  bishops;  but  for  want  of  convenient 
number,  there  could  be  no  presbyters  found  out  to  be  ordain- 
ed, and  in  such  places  they  were  contented  with  the  bishop 
and  deacons;  for  without  their  ministry  the  bishop  could  not 
be."2  So  that  according  to  Epiphanius,  there  were  three 
several  states  of  churches  in  the  apostles'  times;  first  some 
churches  where  there  were  only  presbyters  and  deacons 
without  a  bishop.  For,  if  Epiphanius  speaks  not  at  first  of 
places  where  presbyters  were  without  a  bishop;  he  must  be 
guilty  of  a  vain  and  empty  tautology,  for  he  after  tells  us, 
where  the  necessity  of  the  church  required  it,  a  bishop  was 
made;  therefore  before  he  speaks  of  places  only  where  pres- 
byters and  deacons  were;  and  otherwise  he  would  not  answer 
Aritis  about  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  which  it  is  his  design  to  do,. about 
"the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery."  He  grants 
then  that  at  first  in  some  places  there  were  only  presbyters 
and  deacons,  as  when  the  apostle  writes  to  bishops  and  dea- 
cons, (where  bishops  at  that  time  of  the  church  were  orily 
presbyters),  of  which  two  orders,  presbyters  and  deacons, 
there  was  an  absolute  necessity;  and  the  account  he  gives 
why  they  settled  no   higher  order  above  them  is,  ov  yap  Ttavna 

iv6vi.r,hvvri6riGa.v  uv  aTto^oXot.  xa-ta^riaai,  "the  apOStlcS  COuld  UOt  Settle 
'  The  train  of  the  truth. 

£VTU^«V,  0T(   VE9U    OVTOf    XHpuj'f*aTO?,  WgOf    TO.    I'TTomTnOVTO.    Ey^CKfSV  13  Sj/lOJ   aTTO^oXof    O'STOU 

fxiv  ijo-av  ETrnrxoTTot  JiJu  xara^a&svTE?,  iy^a<pv/  £7r(?>£07roi{  xai  JiaKovoij  ou  ya^  Ttcfna  Eu&t/f 
EXuvn&dtrttv  o(  aTTog-oXot  Kara^n^ai  7r^oer$vTB^aiv  ya^  eyiviro  X?-^"'  ""'  ^'*'""'*"'»  ^'*  y-^ 
Twv  ^vo  rovTU'J  to.  EXxXuo-ia^ixa  S'uvaTat  wXd^ot/o&ai,  oVov  Se  wv.  IupeSo  tij  a^io?  £7r»;- 
xoTTnf,  ifMaei  0  TOTTo;  X""^'?  ETris-KOTTT)  SWcu  5'E  yiyovi  yji^o-  "at  y\^aM  a^ioi  ETriuXOtlTrw?, 
xaTErao-&))3-av  E7rj<rxo7roi.  7rX)i&oy;  5e  jWu  ovrcf,  av)(^  Eu^E&uj-av  £v  avroig  Tr^oes-^ure^oi 
Kara^a^tivai,  Kai  nfXEo-Sjis-av  etti  toj  uttTo,  tottov  juovco  ewiaxoitrai  avsu  Js  hanovov  ema- 
noirov  a^vvarov  Etvai,  &.C. — Epiph.  c.  Arium.  heres.  75,  p.  905,  et  c.  ed.  Petav. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  S53 

all  things  at  first;"  which  words  are  to  be  read  with  a  paren- 
thesis, giving  an  account  why  sometimes  only  bishops  and 
deacons  vvere  settled,  that  is,  presbyters  so  called.  But,  saith. 
he,  where  necessity  called  for  a  higher  order  of  bishops  above 
presbyters,  and  any  were  found  qualified  for  it,  there  such 
were  appointed;  and  if  by  reason  of  the  want  of  persons  of 
sufficient  abilities  to  be  made  presbyters  in  those  places,  there 
they  were  contented  with  such  a  superior  bishop  and  deacons 
assisting  him.  Some  churches  then,  according  to  his  judg- 
ment, had  a  company  of  presbyters  to  rule  them  being  as- 
sisted witli  deacons;  others  had  only  a  single  bishop  with 
deacons;  and  after  when  the  numbers  were  increased,  and 
persons  qualified  were  found,  there  were  both  bishops,  pres- 
byters and  deacons.  For  the  account  which  he  gives  of  the 
former  want  of  some  ofiicers  in  some  churches,  is  this:  "For 
the  church  not  yet  having  all  her  offices  filled,  things  were 
fain  to  remain  in  that  state.  For  nothing  can  be  completed 
at  first,  but  in  process  of  time  every  thing  receives  its  due 
perfection."^  So  that  Epiphanius  doth  not  (as  it  is  thought 
by  some)  say,  that  in  the  first  times  there  were  none  but 
bishops  and  deacons  in  all  churches,  but  in  some  there  were 
presbyters  and  deacons,  in  others  bishops  and  deacons,  ac- 
cording to  their  state,  condition  and  necessity.  Epiphanius 
then  fully  and  clearly  expresseth  my  opinion,  in  reference  to 
the  apostles  not  observing  any  one  constant  course  in  all 
churches,  but  settling  sometimes  many  presbyters  with  dea- 
cons, sometimes  only  one  pastor  (who  is  therefore  called  a 
bishop)  with  deacons,  and  so  settling  officers  according  to 
the  particular  occasions  of  each.  The  next  considerable  tes- 
timony to  our  purpose,  is  that  of  Clemens  Jilexandrinus,  in 
Eusebiiis,  concerning  St.  John  after  his  return  out  of  the 
Isle  of  Patmos  to  Ephesus,  upon  the  death  of  Domitian. 
"  He  went  abroad  upon  invitation  into  tlie  neighbouring  pro- 
vinces of  the  Gentiles,  in  some  places  constituting  bishops; 
in  some  setting  in  order  whole  churches;  in  others  choosing 
out  one  from  among  the  rest  of  those  who  were  designed  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  whom  he  set  over  the  church."^    So  Sal- 


'  Goto)  (read  oytB-ai,  as  the  learned  Dr.  well  corrects  it)  rnj  exxXna-iac  Xaffowa-nf  t* 
TTXijfaj^aTa  Tijf  o(xovo|ttia;,  ouT»  Kara  SKSivov  Kai^ov  naav  h  tottoi,  xai  ya.^  ixai;-ov  ir^ayfAo. 
ovx.  a'HT  apx/iQ  to.  Kavra   E3-)(tv  aWa  TTjoSaivofToj   rou  )(^^omu  ra  'B7gof  n'Kstaa-tv  ;t§eji»» 

XaTO^Tl^STO. 

^  AwjiEi  'jra.^aKaXovfxivo;  ncu  iiti  ra,  it'Kr\a-io'j((i>^arm  bSvwv  orov y.nv'E'iricrKOTrovi;  KarufniraiVf 
owov  h    oKa;    EXxXus-iac   a^fxio-m,  oitov  yi    xX>igov  ha.    Ttva   -riav    uwo  tou   wyeuftarof 

45  . 


354  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

masius^  contends  it  must  be  translated,  xxtjpov  'iva  two.  x%*;pioaiov, 
"choosing  one  into  the  clergy;"  for,  those  who  were  chosen 
bishops,  are  said  xxripovaeat,  iTtiaxonriv,  and  they  that  choose  are 
said,  x^ri^i^tau  Whence  Salmasius  gathers  ont  of  these  words 
the  very  thing  I  am  now  upon:  "The  probabiUty  is,  that  in 
larger  cities  many  presbyters  were  wont  to  be  ordained;  but 
that  in  districts,  villages,  and  small  towns  which  the  Greeks 
call  xcojuai,"  (any  small  town  not  walled  in,)  xu^ixiTto-kni,  (a  town 
between  a  city  and  a  village;)  "it  is  very  likely  that  one 
presbyter  only,  so  long  as  the  number  of  believers  there  was 
not  great,  sufficed."^  We  have  yet  one  author  more  who 
speaks  fully  to  our  purpose.  It  is  the  author  of  the  Commen- 
taries under  Ambrose's  name,  who  frequently  asserts  this  opi- 
nion I  am  now  making  good.  Upon  the  fourth  of  Ephesians, 
he  largely  discourseth  how  things  were  settled  at  first,  by  the 
apostles,  by  degrees,  in  the  church  of  God,  evidently  showing 
that  the  apostles  did  not  at  first  observe  any  settled  constant 
course,  but  acted  according  to  present  conveniency,  as  they  saw 
good,  in  order  to  the  promoting  and  advancing  the  church's 
interest.  "After  that  in  all  places,  churches  were  established, 
and  offices  appointed,  the  matter  when  settled  was  otherwise 
than  when  it  began.'"  Thereby  declaring  his  opinion,  that 
while  churches  were  constituting,  no  certain  course  was  ob- 
served. For,  as  he  goes  on,  "For  at  first  all  taught,  and  all 
baptized  on  whatever  day  or  season  there  was  occasion;  and 
the  people  increasing,  it  was  granted  to  all  to  preach,  baptize, 
and  to  explain  the  scriptures.  But  when  the  church  had 
surrounded  all  places,  and  small  assemblies  were  held,  their 
governors  and  the  rest  of  the  officers  were  appointed;  and  no 
one,  who  was  not  ordained,  presumed  to  take  of  the  clergy  an 
office,  with  which  he  knew  he  v/as  not  entrusted.  But  the 
church  began  to  be  governed  according  to  another  order  and 
provision:  for  if  all  could  do  the  same  things,  they  would  ap- 
pear to  be  common,  and  of  little  value,  and  the  discipline 
injudicious.  Therefore  the  writings  of  the  apostle,  written 
during  the  primitive  organization,  do  not  appear  to  agree  with 
that  order  of  things,  which  now  exist  in  the  church;  for  he 


1  Walo.  Messal.  cap.  4,  p.  224,  &c. 

2  In  majoribus  urbibus  plures,  in  minoribus  pauciores  presbyteros  ordinari 
solitos,  probabile  est.  In  pagis  autem  aut  vicis,  vel  pusillis  oppidis,  quales  xou^a? 
vel  Ktcfx.oitoKiii  vocabant  Grseci,  unum  aliquem  presbyteruni  per  ilia  prajcipue 
tempora  quibus  non  magnus  erat  niimerus  fidelium,  sufTccisse  verisimile  est. 

^  Postquam  omnibus  locis  ecclesiae  sunt  constitutse,  et  officia  ordinata,  aliter 
composita  res  est  quam  ccBperat. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  355 

calls  Timothy,  who  was  made  a  presbyter  by  him,  a  bishop; 
for  so  at  first,  the  presbyters  were  called,  amongst  whom  this 
was  the  course,  that  as  one  withdrew,  another  should  take  his 
place. "^  This  opinion  of  his,  he  takes  occasion  to  speak  of  in 
several  other  places.  Upon  Rom.  16;  "Governors  of  churches 
were  as  yet  set  up  but  in  few  places;"^  and  upon  1  Cor.  i. 
"  On  this  account,  he  writes  to  the  church,  because  as  yet, 
governors  were  not  appointed  in  all  churches,"^  and  on  1  Cor. 
xi.  "  The  presbyters  coming  together,  because  as  yet  gover- 
nors had  not  been  appointed  in  all  churches.'"'*  By  all  which 
it  is  most  evident,  that  this  both  learned  and  ancient  author, 
cited  with  no  small  respect  by  St.  Austin,  doth  not  conceive 
that  the  apostles  did  observe  any  settled  form  in  the  governing 
of  churches,  but  acted  according  to  principles  of  prudence, 
according  to  the  necessities  and  occasions  of  each  by  them 
planted:  so  that  where  there  were  small  churches,  one  pastor 
with  deacons  might  suffice:  in  greater  some  were  governed 
by  presbyters  acting  in  common  council:  others,  though  very 
few  at  first,  had  rectors  placed  over  them,  for  superintending 
the  affairs  of  the  church. 

Secondly,  In  churches  consisting  of  a  multitude  of  be- 
lievers, or  where  there  was  a  probability  of  great  increase 
by  preaching  the  gospel,  the  apostles  did  settle  a  college  of 
presbyters,  ivhose  office  tvas  partly  to  goverji  the  church 
already  formed,  and  partly  to  labour  in  converting  more. 
So  that  in  all  great  cities,  where  either  the  work  was  already 
great  by  the  number  of  believers,  in  order  to  the  discharging 
of  pastoral  duties  to  them,  or  where  it  was  great  in  reference 
to  the  number  they  laboured  in  the  conversion  of,  it  seems 
most  consonant  to  reason  and  scripture,  that  the  work  should 

'  Primum  enim  omnes  docebant,  et  omnes  baptizabant,  quibuscunque  diebus 
vel  tcmporibus  fuisset  occasio,  &c,  Ut  ergo  cresceret  plebs  et  multiplicaretur, 
omnibus  inter  initia  concessum  est  et  evangelizare,  el  baptizare,  et  scripturas  in 
ecclesia  explanare.  At  ubi  omnia  loca  circumplexa  est  ecclesia,  conventicula 
constituta  sunt,  et  rectores  et  csetera  officia  in  ecclesiis  sunt  ordinata;  ut  nullus 
de  Clero  auderet,  qui  ordinatus  non  esset,  prsesumere  officium  quod  sciret  non 
sibi  creditum  vel  concessum;  et  cospit  alio  ordine  et  providentia,  gubernari  ecclesia; 
quia  si  omnes  eadem  possent,  irrationabile  esset,  et  vulgaris  res  et  viljissima 
videretur,  &c.  Ide6  non  per  omnia  conveniunt  scripta  apostoli  ordinationi  quse 
nunc  est  in  ecclesia,  quia  hsec  inter  primordia  sunt  scripta;  nam  et  Timotheuni, 
(presbyterum  Ji  se  creatum,)  episcopum  vocat;  quia  primum  presbyteri  episcopi 
appellabantur,  ut  recedente  uno  sequens  ei  succederet,  &c. 

2  Adhuc  rectores  ecclesiae  paucis  erant  in  locis. 

3  Propterea  ecclesiiE  scribit,  quia*  adhuc  singulis  ecclesiis  rectores  non  erant 
instituti. 

4  Convenientibus  presbyteris,  quia  adhunc  rectores  ecclesiis  non  omnibus  locis 
erant  constituti. 


356  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

be  carried  on  by  the  joint  assistance  of  many  associated  in  the 
same.  For,  is  it  any  ways  probable  that  the  apostles  should 
ordain  bishops  tuv  ixeXKovtuv  rtigiviw,  "of  such  as  should  be- 
Heve,"  as  Clemens  speaks;  and  not  ordain  persons  in  order  to 
the  causing  them  to  believe?  Thev  have  either  a  very  low 
opinion  of  the  work  of  a  gospel  bishop,  or  very  little  consider- 
ation of  the  zeal,  activity  and  diligence  which  was  then  used 
in  preaching,  reproving,  exhorting,  in  season,  out  of  season, 
that  think  one  single  person  was  able  to  undergo  it  all.  Disci- 
pline was  a  great  deal  more  strict  then,  preaching  more  dili- 
gent, men  more  apprehensive  of  the  weight  of  their  function, 
than  for  any  to  undertake  subh  a  care  and  charge  of  souls, 
that  it  was  impossible  for  them  ever  to  know,  observe,  or 
watch  over  so  as  to  give  an  account  for  them.  Besides, 
while  we  suppose  this  one  person  employed  in  the  duties  of 
his  flock,  what  leisure  or  time  could  such  a  one  have  to 
preach  to  the  Gentiles  and  unbelieving  Jews  in  order  to  their 
conversion?  The  apostles  did  not  certainly  aim  at  the  setting 
up  the  honour  of  any  one  person,  making  the  office  of  the 
church  a  matter  of  state  and  dignity  more  than  employment, 
but  they  chose  men  for  their  activity  in  preaching  the  gospel, 
and  for  their  usefulness  in  labouring  to  add  continually  to  the 
church.  Men  that  were  employed  in  the  church  then,  did  not 
consult  for  their  ease  or  honour,  and  thought  it  not  enough  for 
them  to  sit  still  and  bid  others  work,  but  they  were  of  PaiiVs 
mind:  "Necessity  was  laid  upon  them;  yea,  woe  was  unto 
them  if  they  preached  not  the  gospel."^  Public  prayers  were 
not  then  looked  on  as  the  more  principal  end  of  Christian  as- 
semblies than  preaching,  nor  consequently  that  it  was  the 
more  principal  office  of  the  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God, 
to  read  the  public  prayers  of  the  church,  than  to  preach  in 
season  and  out  of  season.  And  is  it  not  great  pity,  two 
such  excellent  and  necessary  duties  should  ever  be  set  at  va- 
riance, much  less  one  so  preferred  before  the  other,  that  the 
one  must  be  esteemed  as  Sarah,  and  the  other  almost  undergo 
the  hardship  of  Hagar,  to  be  looked  on  as  the  bondwoman  of 
the  synagogue,  and  be  turned  out  of  doors?  Praying  and 
preaching  are  the  Jachin  and  Boaz^  of  the  temple,  like  ^«- 
cAe/and  Leah,  both  which  built  up  the  house  of  Israel:  but 
though  Rachel  be  fair  and  beautiful,  yet  Leah  is  the  more 
fruitful:  though  prayer  be  lovely  and  amiable  in  the  sight  of 
God,  when  it  comes  from  a  heart  seriously  affected  with  what 

'  1  Cor.  ix.  16.  2]  Kings  vii.  21. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  357 

it  speaks;  yet  preaching  tends  more  to  the  turning  men's  souls 
from  sin  unto  God.  Were  the  apostles  commissioned  by 
Christ  to  go  pray  or  preach?  and  what  is  it  wherein  the 
ministers  of  the  gospel  succeed  the  apostles?  Is  it  in  the  office 
of  praying,  or  preaching?  Was  Paul  sent  not  to  baptize,  but 
to  preach  the  gospel?  and  shall  we  think  those  who  succeed 
Paul  in  his  office  of  preaching,  are  to  look  upon  anything 
else  as  more  their  work  than  that?  Are  ministers  in  their 
ordination  sent  forth  to  be  readers  of  public  prayers,  or  to  be 
dispensers  of  God's  holy  word?  Are  they  ordained  wholly 
to  this,  and  shall  this  be  the  less  principal  part  of  their  work? 
aye;  but  the  reason  is  unanswerable,  that  praying  is  the  more 
principal  end  of  Christian  assemblies  than  preaching:  for,  the 
one  is  the  end,  and  the  other  the  means.  If  by  end,  be  meant 
the  ultimate  end  of  all  Christian  duties,  that  cannot  be  prayer: 
for  that  is  a  means  itself  in  order  to  that;  but  the  chief  end  is 
the  fitting  souls  for  eternal  praises;  if  then  this  unanswerable 
reason  hold  good,  the  principal  end  of  Christian  assemblies 
must  be  only  praises  of  God,  and  not  prayers.  If  by  the  end, 
be  meant  the  immediate  end  of  preaching  as  that  it  refers  to, 
that  cannot  be;  for  the  immediate  end  of  preaching,  if  the  apos- 
tle may  be  judge,  is  instruction  and  edification  in  the  faith; 
rather  preaching  is  the  end  of  praying,  inasmuch  as  the  bless- 
ings conveyed  by  preaching  are  the  things  which  men  pray  for. 
But  this  is  but  one  of  those  unhappy  consequences  which  fol- 
lows men's  judging  of  the  service  of  God,  rather  by  the  prac- 
tices of  the  church,  when  it  came  to  enjoy  ease  and  plenty,  than 
by  the  ways  and  practices  of  the  first  and  purest  apostolical 
times:  when  the  apostles,  who  were  best  able  to  judge  of  their 
own  duty,  looked  upon  themselves  as  most  concerned  in  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel.  But  to  this  it  is  commonly  said,  that 
"there  was  great  reason  for  it  then,  because  the  world  was  to 
be  converted  to  Christianity,  and  therefore  preaching  was  the 
more  necessary  work  at  that  time;  but  when  a  nation  is  con- 
verted to  the  faith,^  that  necessity  ceaseth."  It  is  granted,  that 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel  in  regard  to  its  universal  extent 
was  more  necessary  then,  which  was  the  foundation  of  Christ's 
instituting  the  apostolical  office  with  an  unlimited  commission; 
but  if  we  take  preaching  as  referring  to  particular  congrega- 
tions, there  is  the  same  necessity  now  that  there  was  then. 
People  need  as  much  instruction  as  ever,  and  so  much  the  more 

•  When  was  that?     Who  was  ever  so  blind  as  to  assert  that  this  ever  yet  has 
been  u  fact?    Yet  we  are  told  that  it  will  be. 


358  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

in  that  they  are  apt  to  think  now  the  name  of  Christians  will 
carry  them  to  Heaven.  It  is  a  too  common  and  very  dangerous 
deceit  of  men,  to  look  upon  rehgion  more  as  a  profession 
than  matter  of  Hfe,  more  as  a  notion  than  an  inward  temper. 
Men  must  be  beat  off  from  more  things  which  they  are  apt 
to  trust  to  for  salvation  now,  than  in  those  times.  Men 
could  not  think  so  much  then,  that  diligence  in  public  as- 
semblies, and  attendance  at  public  prayers,  was  the  main 
religion.  Few  would  profess  Christianity  in  those  times, 
but  such  as  were  resolved  beforehand  rather  to  let  go  their 
lives  than  their  profession:  but  the  more  profess  it  now,  with- 
out understanding  the  terms  of  salvation;  the  greater  necessity 
there  is  of  preaching  to  instruct  men  in  it.  But  I  think  more 
need  not  be  said  of  this  to  those  that  know  it  is  another  thing 
to  be  a  Christian,  than  to  be  called  so.  But  however  it  is 
granted,  that  in  the  apostles'  times  preaching  was  the  great 
work;  and  if  so,  how  can  we  think  one  single  person  in  a  great 
city  was  sufficient,  both  to  preach  to,  and  rule  the  church,  and 
to  preach  abroad  in  order  to  the  conversion  of  more  from  their 
Gentilism  to  Christianity?  Especially  if  the  church  of  every 
city  was  so  large  as  some  would  make  it,  viz.  to  comprehend 
all  the  believers  under  the  civil  jurisdiction  of  the  city,  and  so 
both  city  and  country  the  charge  of  one  single  bishop.  I  think 
the  vastness  of  the  work,  and  the  impossibility  of  a  right  dis- 
charge of  it  by  one  single  person,  may  be  argument  enough 
to  make  us  interpret  the  places  of  scripture  which  may  be  un- 
derstood in  that  sense,  as  of  more  than  one  pastor  in  every 
city;  as  when  the  apostles  are  said  to  ordain  elders  in  every 
city,  and  FauVs  calling  for  the  elders  from  Ephesus,  and  his 
writing  to  the  bishops  and  deacons  of  the  church  of  Philippi; 
this  consideration,  I  say,  granting  that  the  texts  may  be  other- 
wise understood,  will  be  enough  to  incline  men  to  think  that 
in  greater  cities  there  was  a  society  of  presbyters  acting  to- 
gether for  the  carrying  on  the  work  of  the  gospel  in  converting 
some  to,  and  building  up  of  others  in  the  faith  of  Christ.  And 
it  seems  not  in  the  least  manner  probable  to  me,  that  the  care 
of  those  great  churches  should  at  first  be  intrusted  in  the  hands 
of  one  single  pastor  and  deacon,  and  afterwards  a  new  order 
of  presbyters  erected  under  them,  without  any  order  or  rule 
laid  down  in  scripture  for  it,  or  any  mention  in  eccleeiastical 
writers  of  any  such  after  institution.  But  instead  of  that  in 
the  most  populous  churches,  we  have  many  remaining  foot- 
steps of  such  a  college  of  presbyters  there  established  in  apos- 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  359 

tolical  times.  Thence  Ignatius^  says,  the  presbyters  are 
tJ5  (svvihe^iov  Qtov  jcai  wj  tfa)j'8£(j;W05  Artoj'oXwj',  ''the  sanhedritTi  of  the 
church  appointed  by  God,  and  the  bench  of  apostles"^  sitting 
together  for  ruling  the  affairs  of  the  church.  And  Origen 
calls  it,  civgy]/A.a  tv  ixao'trj  fioxct  x-toa^sv  xoyu  Osov, "  a  College  in  every 
city  of  God's  appointing;"  and  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome,  col- 
legium nostrum,  et  collegium  fratrum,  "our  college  and  the 
college  of  the  brethren,"  "  Pius  calls  it  '  the  poor  senate  of 
Christ  established  at  Rome;'  TertuUian, '  the  approved  elders;' 
Cyprian,  'the  sacred  and  venerable  assembly  of  our  clergy;' 
and  to  Cornelius,  bishop  of  Rome,  and  his  clergy,  'to  the  most 
illustrious  clergy  presiding  with  thee;'  Jerome,  '  our  senate, 
the  congregation  of  presbyters,  and  the  common  council  of 
presbyters,  by  which  the  churches  are  governed;'  Hilary,  'the 
elders  without  whose  counsel  nothing  is  done  in  the  church;' 
the  author  of  the  seven  orders,  calls  the  presbyters  'judges 
of  affairs,'  "^  Entychius  tells  us  there  were  twelve  presbyters 
at  Alexandria  to  govern  the  church;  and  the  author  of  the 
Itinerary  of  Peter,  of  as  many  constituted  at  Caesarea,  who 
though  counterfeit,  must  be  allowed  to  speak,  though  not  vera, 
yet  verisimilia,  "  though  not  true,  yet  likely  things,"  Is  it 
possible  all  these  authors  should  thus  speak  of  their  several 
places,  of  a  college  of  presbyters  acting  in  power  with  the 
bishop,  if  at  first  churches  were  governed  only  by  a  single 
bishop,  and  afterwards  by  subject  presbyters  that  had  nothing 
to  do  in  the  rule  of  the  church,  but  were  only  deputed  to  some 
particular  offices  under  him,  which  they  were  empowered  to 
do  only  by  his  authority?  But  the  joint  rule  of  the  bishop  and 
presbyters  in  the  churches  will  be  more  largely  deduced  after- 
wards. Thus  we  see  a  company  of  presbyters  settled  in  great 
churches;  now  we  are  not  to  imagine  that  all  these  did  equally 
attend  to  one  part  of  their  work;  but  all  of  them  according  to 
their  several  abilities  laid  out  themselves;  some  in  overseeing 
and  guiding  the  church;  but  yet  so  as  upon  occasion  to  dis- 
charge all  pastoral  acts  belonging  to  their  function;  others  be- 
took themselves  chiefly  to  the  conversion  of  others  to  the  faith, 

1  Ep.  ad.  Tral.  2  c.  Cel,  sum.  1.  6,  c.  3,  p.  129 

3  Pius,  pauperem  senatum  Christi  apud  Romam  constitutum;  TertuUian,  pro- 
bates seniores;  Cyprian,  cleri  nostri  sacrum  venerandumque  concessum;  and  to 
Cornelius,  bishop  of  Rome  and  his  clergy,  florenlissimo  clero  tecum  prsesidenti; 
Jerome,  senatum  nostrum,  ccEtum  presbyterorum,  et  commune  concilium  presby- 
terorum  quo  ecclesiae  gubernabantur;  Hilary,  seniores  sine  quorum  consiiio  nihil 
agebatur  in  ecclesiaB;  the  author  de  7  ordinibus  ad  rusticum,  calls  the  presbyters 
negotiorum  judices. — Pius,  ep.  ad  Just.  Vica.  Apol.  c.  39.  Cypri.  ep.  55,  s.  19,  s. 
21.   Hieronym.  in  Is.  1,  2,  c.  3.  Ep.  ad  Evag,  in  1  Tim.  v. 


360  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

either  in  the  cities  or  the  adjacent  countries.  By  which  we 
come  to  a  full,  clear  and  easy  understanding  of  that  so  much 
controverted  place,  1  Tim.Y.  17;  "Theelders  that  rule  well  are 
counted  worthy  of  double  hojiour;  especially  they  that  labour 
in  the  word  and  doctrine."^  Not  as  though  it  implied  a  distinct 
sort  of  elders  from  the  pastors  of  churches,  but  among  those 
elders  that  were  ordained  in  the  great  churches,  some  attended 
most  to  ruling  the  flock  already  converted,  others  laboured 
most  to  converting  others  to  the  faith  by  preaching;  though 
both  these  being  entered  into  this  peculiar  function  of  laying 
themselves  forth  for  the  benefit  of  the  church,  did  deserve 
both  respect  and  maintenance,  yet  especially  those  who  em- 
ployed themselves  in  converting  others,  inasmuch  as  their 
burden  was  greater,  their  labours  more  abundant,  their  suffer- 
ings more;  and  their  very  office  coming  the  nearest  to  the 
apostolical  function.  So  Chrysostom^  resolves  it  upon  the 
fourth  of  the  Ephesians,  that  those  who  were  xata.  xa/xai  xat, 
TtoXfts  a^u^iOfisvoi,,  "  dispersed  amongst  the  towns  and  villages," 
as  Theodorct  expresseth  it,  the  csoijxsvs 5  xai,  8i8aaxa%oo,  "pastors 
and  teachers,"  the  fixed  officers  of  particular  churches  were 
inferior  to  those  who  went  abroad  preaching  the  gospel;  xat 

Ttavv  toiv   TisPiovti^v  xai  fvayyf%v^o[ji,svU)V  ij  ol  xaOrjft-fvot  xat,  «i^i  Iva  T'ortov 

Tjaxo-KTifif voi,  "  and  more  of  those  going  about  and  preach- 
ing the  gospel,  than  those  settled  and  employed  about  one 
place."  An  evident  argument  that  the  apostle  doth  not  in- 
tend any  sort  of  elders  distinct  from  those  ordained  presbyters 
of  the  cities,  is  from  that  very  argument  which  the  greatest 
friends  to  lay-elders  draw  out  of  this  epistle,  which  is  from 
the  promiscuous  acceptation  of  the  words  Tt^saj^vtspoi  and  aTttj- 
xocoj  in  this  very  epistle  to  Timothy.  The  argument  runs 
thus:  The  presbyters  spoken  of  by  Paul  in  iiis  epistle  to 
Timothy^  are  scripture-bishops;  but  lay-elders  are  not  scrip- 
ture-bishops; therefore  these  cannot  here  be  meant.  The 
major  is  their  own,  from  1  Twi.  iii.  1,  compared  with  iv.  14. 
Those  which  are  called  presbyters  in  one  place,  are  bishops  in 
another;  and  the  main  force  of  the  argument  lies  in  the  pro- 
miscuous use  of  bishop  and  presbyter;  now  then  if  lay-elders 
be  not  such  bishops,  then  they  are  not  PauVs  presbyters;  now 
PauVs  bishops  must  be  hi.ha.x-tixQi,  "  fit  to  teach,"  and  there- 
fore no  lay-elders.     Again  we  may  consider  where  Timothy 


2  Chrysost.  in  4  Epli.  horn,  1 1. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  361 

now  was,  viz.  at  Ephesus,  and  therefore  if  such  lay-elders  any- 
where should  be  there.  Let  us  see  then  whether  any  such  were 
here.  It  is  earnestly  pleaded  by  all  who  are  for  lay-elders,  that 
the  elders  spoken  of,  ^cts  xx.  17,  were  the  particular  elders 
of  the  church  of  Ephesus,  to  whom  Paul  spoke,  verse  28, 
whore  we  may  find  their  office  at  large  described,  "Take  heed 
therefore  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  iTivsxomovi,  bishops  or  over- 
seers." Here  we  see  both  the  names  elders  and  bishops  con- 
founded again,  so  that  he  that  was  an  elder  was  a  bishop  too, 
and  the  office  of  such  elders  described  to  be  a  pastoral  charge 
over  a  flock,  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  notion  of  a  lay-elder. 
Paul  sent  indefinitely  for  the  elders  of  the  church  to  come 
to  him.  If  any  such  then  at  Ephesus,  they  must  come  at  this 
summons;  all  the  elders  that  came,  were  such  as  were  pastors 
of  churches:  therefore  there  could  be  no  lay-elders  there.  I 
insist  not  on  the  argument  for  maintenance  implied  in  double 
honour,  which  Chrysostom  explains  by  triv  -t^v  amyxaccov  xoe,ri' 
jLdv,  a  "  supply  of  necessaries"  to  be  given  to  them,  as  appears 
by  verse  IS,  which  argument  Blondell  Saw  such  strength  in, 
that  it  brought  him  quite  off  from  la^'^-elders  in  that  place  of 
Timothy}  And  he  that  will  remove  the  controversy  from 
the  scriptures,  to  the  primitive  church,  (as  we  have  no  reason 
to  think,  that  if  such  were  appointed,  they  should  be  so  soon 
laid  aside,)  will  find  it  the  greatest  difficulty  to  trace  the  foot- 
steps of  a  lay-elder  through  the  records  of  antiquity,  for  the 
three  first  centuries  especially.  The  writers  of  the  church 
speak  of  no  presbyters,  but  such  as  preached,  as  appears  by 
Origen,  Cyprian,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria;  Origen  saith, 
"  all  the  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons  instruct  us,  and  in 
instructing  apply  correction,  and  with  more  severe  language 
reprove  us."^  We  see  all  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons 
were  in  his  time  preachers.  So  Cyprian, '■'■\  had  believed, 
indeed,  that  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  who  are  there  present, 
admonish  and  fully  instruct  you  relative  to  the  gospel  law,  as 
has  always  been  done  by  our  predecessors."^  And  in  another 
epistle,  about  making  Numidicus  a  presbyter,  he  thus  ex- 


'  De  jure  plebis  in  regimen.  Eccles.  p.  79,  etc. 

2  Oinncs  episcopi  atque  omnes  presbyteri  vel  diaconi  erudiunt  nos,  et  eru- 
dientes  adhibent  correctionem,  et  verbis  austerioribus  increpant. — Orig.  iiom.  1, 
in  Psai.  37. 

3  Et  crediderani  quidein  presbyteros  et  diaconos  qui  illic  prsesentes  sunt, 
monere  vos  et  instruere  plenissim6  circa  evangelii  legem,  sicut  semper  ab  ante- 
cessoribus  nostris  factum  est. — Cyprian.  1.  1,  cp.  11. 

46 


362  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

presseth  it:  "  that  he  may  be  enrolled  amongst  the  number  of 
the  Carthaginian  presbytery,  and  obtain  a  seat  with  you 
amongst  the  clergy;"^  where  to  sit  as  one  of  the  clergy,  and 
to  be  a  presbyter,  are  all  one.  tdgain,  had  there  been  any 
such  elders,  it  would  have  belonged  to  them  to  lay  hands  on 
those  that  were  reconciled  to  the  church  after  censures;  now 
hands  were  only  laid  on  ub  episcopo  et  clero^  as  the  same 
Cyprian  tells  us.  Clemens  Jllexandrinus,  describing  the  office 
of  a  presbyter  Jiath  these  words,  odt'oj  n^i^^v-tt^o^  tgto  tc^  wti.  trji 

exx%r]6i.ai,  &C.,  lav  rtoir;  xat,  SiSadXTj  t'o  -iov  xv^tov,^  "he  IS  a  presby- 
ter of  the  church,  if  he  do  instruct  and  preach  to  the  congre- 
gation present,"  where  teaching  is  looked  on  as  his  proper 
work:  and  elsewhere,  more  fuUj''  and  expressly  discoursing 
of  the  service  of  God,  and  distinguishing  it  according  to  the 
twofold  service  of  men,  ^s^tiatixTj  xai,  irt7i^sti,xf;,  "  most  excel- 
lent, serviceable,"  he  applies  these  to  the  churches,  "  Likewise 
relative  to  the  church,  the  deacons  maintain  a  serviceable 
similitude,  but  the  presbyters  the  most  excellent."'*  The  for- 
mer he  explains  afterwards,  "A  presbyter  is  ordained  to  in- 
struct, and  for  the  reformation  of  men,''''  implying  thereby  the 
office  of  a  presbyter  to  be  wholly  conversant  about  teacliing 
others,  to  whom  on  that  account  the  art  of  making  others 
better  doth  properly  belong.  So  much  may  suffice  for  those 
first  times  of  the  church,  that  there  were  no  presbyters  then, 
but  such  as  had  the  office  of  teaching.  And  for  the  times 
afterwards  of  the  church,  let  it  suffice  at  present  to  produce 
the  testimony  of  a  council  held  in  the  beginning  of  the  seventh 
century,  who  absolutely  decree  against  all  lay  persons  med- 
dling in  church  affairs:  ''By  a  recent  transaction  we  learn  that 
certain  laymen  of  our  college  have,  contrary  to  the  customs  of 
the  church,  stewards  appointed  in  sacred  things.  Therefore, 
treating  all  alike,  we  choose  that  each  of  us,  according  to  tiie 
decrees  of  the  Chalcedon  fathers,  should,  out  of  his  own 
clergy,  appoint  a  steward  for  himself  For  it  is  indecorous 
that  a  layman  should  be  a  substitute  for  a  bishop,  and  that 
secular  men  should  judge  in  the  church.  For  no  incompatible 
profession  should  exist  in  one  and  the  same  office.""^    A  canon 

'  Ut  ascribatur  presbyteroriim  Carthaginensium  numero,  et  nobiscum  sedeat 
in  clero. — Ep,  35. 

2  Ep.  12.  3  Strom.  1.  6,  p.  667,  ed.  Hcins. 

■•  '0/txo«a);  h  Jtat  stara  mv  BHnXtjinav,  rnv  fxiv  daKrianiiirit  o'l  'rr^ia-BvTS^oi  a-a>^ovcriv  etnova, 
rnv  vTrv^BTUtriv  h  o'l  haitovot. — Strom.  I.  7,  p.  700. 

^   OTTcag  av  xat  waiSeuetv  h  TETay/ttsvof  eif  tev  t<wv  avZrpaiviev  iTTavopBcoe-iv. 

^  Nova  actione  didicinius,  quosdam  ex  nostro  C'ollegio  contra  mores  ecclcsias- 
ticos,  laicos  habere  in  rebus  divinis  constitutos  oecononios.     Proiiide  pariter  trac- 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  363 

directly  levelled  against  all  lay  chancellors  in  bishops'  courts, 
and  such  officials:  but  doth  with  the  same  force  take  away  all 
lay-elders,  as  implying  it  to  be  wholly  against  the  rule  of  the 
church  to  have  secular  persons  to  judge  in  the  church.  But 
although  I  suppose  this  may  be  sufficient  to  manifest  the  no 
divine  right  of  lay-elders;  yet  I  do  not  therefore  absolutely 
condemn  all  use  of  some  persons  chosen  by  the  people  to  be  as 
their  representatives,  for  managing  their  interest  in  the  affairs 
of  the  church.  For,  now  the  voice  of  the  people,  (which  was 
used  in  the  primitive  times,)  is  grown  out  of  use:  such  a  con- 
stitution, whereby  two  or  more  of  the  people's  choice  might 
be  present  at  church  debates,  might  be  very  useful,  so  they  be 
looked  on  only  as  a  prudential  human  constitution,  and  not 
as  anything  founded  on  divine  right.  So  much  may  serve 
for  the  first  ground  of  the  probability  of  the  apostles'  not 
observing  one  settled  form  of  church  government,  which  was 
from  the  different  state,  quantity  and  condition  of  the  churches 
by  them  planted.  The  second  was  from  the  multitude  of  un- 
fixed officers  residing  in  some  places,  who  managed  the  affairs 
of  the  church  in  chief,  during  their  residence.  Such  were  the 
apostles  and  evangelists,  and  all  persons  almost  of  note  in 
scripture.  They  were  but  very  few  who  were  left  at  home  to 
take  care  of  the  spoil;  the  strongest  and  ablest,  like  command- 
ers in  an  army,  were  not  settled  in  any  troop,  but  went  up 
and  down  from  this  company  to  that,  to  order  them  and  draw 
(hem  forth:  and  while  they  were,  they  had  the  chief  authority 
among  them— -but  as  commanders  of  the  army  and  not  as 
officers  of  the  troop.  Such  were  evangelists  who  were  sent 
sometimes  into  this  country  to  put  the  churches  in  order  there, 
sometimes  into  another;  but  wherever  they  were,  they  acted 
as  evangelists  and  not  as  fixed  officers.  And  such  were 
Timothy  and  Titus,  notwithstanding  all  the  opposition  made 
against  it,  as  will  appear  to  any  one  that  will  take  an  impar- 
tial survey  of  the  arguments  on  both  sides.  Now  where  there 
were  in  some  places  evangelists,  in  others  not;  and  in  many 
churches  it  may  be  no  other  officers  but  these,  it  wiil  appear 
that  the  apostles  did  not  observe  one  constant  form,  but  were 
with  the  evangelists  travelling  abroad  to  the  churches,  and 
ordering  things  in  them  as  they  saw  cause.  But  as  to  this  I 
have  anticipated  myself  already.     The  last  ground  was  from 

tantcs  eligimus,  ut  unusquisque  nostrdm  secundum  Chalcedonensium  patrum 
decreta,  ex  proprio  clero  oeconomum  sibi  constituat.  Indecorum  est  enim 
laicum  esse  vicarium  episcopi,  et  sseculares  in  ecclesia  judicare;  in  uno  enim 
eodemque  officio  non  debet  esse  dispar  professio. — Concil.  Hispal.  2,  decret.  9. 


364  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

the  different  customs  observed  in  the  churches  after  the  apos- 
tles' times.  For  no  other  rational  account  can  be  given  of 
the  different  opinions  of  Epiphaniiis,  Jerome  and  Hilary, 
but  this,  that  one  speaks  of  the  custom  of  some  churches,  and 
the  other  of  others.  In  some,  as  at  Alexandria,  the  presby- 
ters might  choose  their  bishop;  in  other  places  it  might  be,  as 
Hilary  saith,  that  when  the  first  witlidrew,  another  succeeded 
him.  Not  by  a  monthly  or  annual  rotation  of  presidents,  as 
some  have  imagined,  but  by  a  presidency  for  life  of  one,  upon 
whose  death  another  succeeded  in  his  room.  For  the  former 
opinion  hath  not  any  evidence  at  all  for  it  in  scripture  or  an- 
tiquity; or  in  the  place  brought  to  prove  it.  For,  according 
to  this  opinion,  Timothy  must  have  but  his  course  in  the  ro- 
tation of  elders  at  Ephesus,  which  seems  very  incongruous 
to  the  office  of  Timothy.  I  conclude  then,  that  in  all  proba- 
bility the  apostles  tied  not  themselves  up  to  one  certain  course, 
but  in  some  churches  settled  more  or  fewer  officers  as  they 
saw  cause,  and  in  others  governed  themselves  during  life;  and 
that  at  their  death  they  did  not  determine  any  form,  is  pro- 
bably argued  from  the  different  customs  of  several  churches 
afterwards. 

§  20.  The  third  consideration  touching  apostolical  practice, 
is  concerning  the  obligatory  force  of  it  in  reference  to  us; 
which  I  lay  down  in  these  terms,  That  a  mere  apostolical 
practice  being  supposed,  is  not  sufficient  of  itself  for  the 
founding  an  unalterable  and  perpetual  right,  for  that  form 
of  government  in  the  church,  which  is  supposed  to  be  founded 
on  that  practice.     This  is  a  proposition  I  am  sure,  will  not  be 
yielded  without  proving  it,  and  therefore  I  shall  endeavour  to 
do  it  by  a  fourfold  argument.     First,  because  many  things 
were  done  by  the  apostles  without  any  intention  of  obliging 
any  who  succeeded  them  afterwards  to  do  the  same.     As  for 
instance,  the  twelve  apostles  going  abroad  so  unprovided  as 
they  were  when  Christ  sent  them  forth  at  first,  which  would 
argue  no  great  wisdom  or  reason  in  that  man,  that  should 
draw  that  practice  into  consequence  now.     Of  the  like  nature 
was  PauVs  preaching  ahartavov  ivayyiUov,  "  an  inexpensive  gos- 
pel," to  some  churches,  receiving  no  maintenance  at  all  from 
some  churches,  as  that  at  Corinth.    Which  instance  is  a  mani- 
fest evidence  of  the  monstrous  weakness  of  discourse  in  those 
who  would  make  that  example  of  Paul  obligatory  to  all 
ministers  of  the  gospel  now.    And  while  they  would  by  this 
argument  take  away  their  lands  and  tithes,  instead  of  them, 
they  give  them  plaustra  convitiorum,  "  whole  loads  of  the 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  365 

most  reproachful  speeches,"  that  ever  were  given  to  any,  but 
Christ  and  his  apostles.     For  my  part,  1  think  the  ministers  of 
the  gospel  would  want  one  of  the  badgesof  honour  belonging 
to  their  office,  were  they  not  reproaclifully  used;  it  is  part  of 
the  state  which  belongs  to  the  true  ministers  of  the  gospel  to 
be  followed  by  such  blackmouthed  lacqueys,  who  by  their 
virulent  speeches  are  so  far  their  friends,  as  to  keep  them 
from  that  curse  which  our  Saviour  pronounceth;  "Wo  be  unto 
you  when  all  men  speak  well  of  you."     But  let  us  see  how 
much  wool  there  is  after  all  this  cry;  too  little  to  clothe  the 
backs  of  ministers,  if  such  persons  might  be  their  tilhemen; 
but  it  is  well  they  are  so  little  befriended,  yea  so  much  opposed 
by  the  great  apostle,  in  that  singular  practice  of  his.     For 
doth  he  say,  it  was  unlawful  for  him  to  receive  a  maintenance 
from  the  churches  he  preached  to?     Nay  doth  he  not  set  him- 
self to  prove  not  only  the  lawfulness  of  ministers  taking  it, 
but  the  duty  of  people's  giving  it,  1  Cor.  ix,  from  the  seventh 
to  the  fifteenth  verse,  giving  many  pregnant  arguments  to 
that  purpose?     Doth  he  not  say  that  all  the  apostles  besides 
him  and  Barnabas,  did  forbear  working,  and  consequently 
had  all  their  necessities  supplied  by  the  churches?^     Nay  doth 
not  Paul  himself  say  "that  he  robbed  other  churches,  taking 
wages  of  them  to  do  service  to  them?"^     What,  Paul  turned 
hireling?  and  in  the  plainest  terms  take  wages  of  churches? 
Yet  so  it  is,  and  his  forbearing  it  at  Corinth,  was  apt  to  be 
interpreted  as  an  argument  that  he  did  not  love  them,  2  Cor. 
xi.  11,     So  far  were  they  from  looking  upon  Paul  as  a  hire- 
ling in  doing  it.     Paul  is  strong  and  earnest  in  asserting  his 
right:  he  might  have  done  it  at  Corinth  as  well  as  elsewhere; 
But  from  some  prudent  considerations  of  his  own,  mentioned 
2  Cor.  xi.  12,  he  forbore  the   exercise  of  his  right  among 
them,  although  at  the  same  time   he  received  maintenance 
from  other  places.^     As  for  any  divine  right  of  a  particular 
way  of  maintenance,  I  am  of  the  same  opinion  as  to  that 
which  I  am  in  reference  to  particular  forms  of  church  govern- 
ment; and  those  that  are  of  another  opinion,  I  would  not  wish 
them  so  much  injury,  as  to  want  their  maintenance  till  they 
prove  it.    But  then  I  say,  these  things  are  clear  in  themselves, 
and  I  think  sufficient  grounds  for  conscience,  as  to  the  duty  of 
paying  on  the  one  side,  and  the  lawfulness  of  receiving  it  on 
the  other.     First  that  a  maintenance  in  general  be  given  to 
gospel  ministers,  is  of  divine  right:  else  the  labourer  were  not 

>  1  Cor.  i.x.  6.  2  2  Cor.  xi.  8.  3  2  Cor.  xi.  9. 


366  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

worthy  of  his  hire;  nor  could  that  be  true  which  Paul  sailh, 
"  that  our  Lord  hath  ordained;  that  they  which  preach  the 
gospel  should  hve  of  the  gospel."^    Secondly.  A  maintenance 
in  general   being  due,  lawful  authority  may  determine  the 
particular  way  of  raising  it;  the  equity  of  which  way  may  be 
iaest  derived  from  what  was  the  most  ancient  practice  of  the 
world  in  dedicating  things  to  God,  and  was  approved  by  God 
himself  among  his  own  people,  the  Jews;  so  that  the  way  of 
maintenance  by  tithes  is  the  most  just  and  equitable  way. 
Thirdly,  It  being  in  the  magistrates'  power  to  determine  the 
way  of  maintenance,  what  is  so  determined,  doth  bind  the 
consciences  of  all  subject  to  that  power,  to  an  obedience  to  it 
for  conscience  sake:  inasmuch  as  all  men  are  bound  thus  to 
obey  the  magistrate  in  all  things  established  by  him  as  laws; 
and  the  very  same  reasons  any  can  plead  for  disobedience  as 
to  this,  may  equally  serve  for  disobedience  to  any  other  laws 
made  by  the  supreme    magistrate.     This  I  suppose  is  the 
clearest  resolution  of  that  other  more  vexed  than  intricate 
controversy  about  the  right  of  tithes;  which  I  have  here  spoken 
of  by  occasion  of  the  mention  of  the  apostles'  practice;  and 
because  it  is  resolved  upon  the  same  principles  with  the  sub- 
ject I  am  upon.     Mere  apostolical  practice  we  see  doth  not 
bind,  because  the  apostles  did  many  things  without  intention 
of  binding  others.     Secondly,  The  apostles  did  many  things 
upon    particular   occasions,  emergencies   and  circumstances, 
which  things  so  done,  cannot  bind  by  virtue  of  their  doing 
them  any  further  than  a  parity  of  reason  doth  conclude  the 
same  things  to  be  done  in  the  same  circumstances.     Thus 
PaiiVs  celibacy  is  far  from  binding  the  church,  it  being  no 
universal  practice  of  the  apostles  by  a  law,  but  only  a  thing 
taken  up  by  him  upon  some  particular  grounds,  not  of  per- 
petual and  universal  concern.^     So  community  of  goods  was 
used  at  first  by  the  church  at  Jerusalem  as  most  suitable  to 
the  present  state  of  that  church;  but  as  far  as  we  can  find,  did 
neither  perpetually  hold  in  that  church,  nor  universally  ob- 
tain among  other  churches;  as  is  most  clear  in  the  church  at 
Corinth  by  their  lawsuits,  by  the  different  offerings  of  the 
rich  and  poor  at  the  Lord's  supper,  and  by  their  personal  con- 
tributions.^    So  the  apostles  preaching  from  house  to  house, 
was  more  for  conveniency  than  the  want  of  public  places,  as 
free  only  for  Christians;  although  that  practice  binds  now  as 
far  as  the  reason  doth;  viz.  in  its  tendency  to  promote  the  work 

'  1  Cor.  ix.  14.  2  1  Cor.  ix.  5.  3  1  Cor.  vi.  1;  xi.  21,  22;  xvi.  1,  2. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  367 

of  salvation  of  men.  Laying  on  hands,  as  a  sign,  for  confer- 
ing  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  can  never  certainly  bind 
where  the  reason  of  it  is  ceased,  bnt  may  still  continue  as  a 
rite  of  solemn  prayer,  and  not  by  virtue  of  that  practice. 
Observing  the  apostolical  decrees  of  "  abstaining  from  blood, 
and  things  strangled  and  offered  to  idols,'"  did  hold  as  long  as 
the  ground  of  making  them  did,  which  was  condescension 
to  the  Jews,  although  it  must  be  withal  acknowledged  that 
the  primitive  Christians  of  the  second  and  third  centuries  did 
generally  observe  them;^  and  the  Greek  church  to  this  day; 
and  some  men  of  note  and  learning  have  pleaded  for  the 
necessary  observation  of  them  still,  as  Christopher  Beckman, 
Steph.  Curctllseus  in  a  diatriba  lately  published  to  this  pur- 
pose, to  which  Grotius  is  likewise  very  inclinable.  The  argu- 
ments are  too  large  here  to  examine,  although  I  see  not  how 
possibly  diat  place  of  Paul  can  be  avoided,  "Whatever  is 
set  in  the  shambles  eat,  making  no  scruple  for  conscience 
sake.  "2 

1  conclude  this  with  what  I  laid  down  at  the  entrance  of 
this  treatise,  that  where  any  act  or  law  is  founded  upon  a 
particular  reason  or  occasion  as  the  ground  of  it,  it  doth  no 
further  oblige  than  the  reason  or  occasion  of  it  doth  continue.^ 
Therefore  before  an  acknowledged  apostolical  practice  be 
looked  on  as  obligatory,  it  must  be  made  to  appear  that  what 
they  did,  was  not  according  as  they  saw  reason  and  cause  for 
the  doing  it,  depending  upon  the  several  circumstances  of 
time,  place  and  persons,  but  that  they  did  it  from  some  un- 
alterable law  of  Christ,  or  from  such  indispensable  reasons,  as 
will  equally  hold  in  all  times,  places  and  persons.  And  so 
the  obligation  is  taken  off  from  apostolical  practice,  and  laid 
upon  that  law  and  reason  which  was  the  ground  of  it. 
Thirdly,  Offices  that  were  of  apostolical  appointment,  are 
grown  wholly  out  of  use  in  the  church,  without  men's  look- 
ing upon  themselves  as  bound  now  to  observe  them.  As 
the  widows  of  the  churches,  afterwards  from  their  office 
called  deaconesses  of  the  church,''  of  which  number  Phoebe 
was  one,  whom  Paul  calls  the  deaconess  of  the  church  at 
Cenchreaf  so  both  Origen  and  Chrysostom  understand  it. 
Of  them  and  their  continuance  in  the  church  for  some  cen- 
turies of  years,  much  is  spoken  by  several  writers^,  and  re- 

•  Exercit.  Theoi.  n.  26,  CurcellsEUs  de  esu  sanguinis,  »fec.  Grotius  in  Acts 
XV.  29. 

2  1  Cor.  X.  25.  3  Part.  I.  chap.  1,  s.  6. 
4  Tim.  V.  9.  5  Rom.  xvi.  1. 

«  Plin.  ep.  1.  10,  ep.  97.    Theod.  1.  3,  cap.  14.    Sozom.  1.  4,  cap.  24.    Codex 


368  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

solved  by  several  councils;  and  yet  we  see  these  are  laid 
aside  by  the  pretenders  to  hold  close  to  apostolical  practice. 
If  that  binds,  certainly  it  doth  in  its  plain  institutions;  if  it 
doth  not  bind  in  them,  how  can  it  in  that  which  is  only 
gathered  but  by  uncertain  conjectures  to  have  been  ever  their 
practice;  so  that  in  the  issue,  those  who  plead  so  much  for 
the  obligatory  nature  of  apostolical  practice,  do  not  think  it 
obligatory;  for  if  they  did,  how  comes  this  office  of  widows 
and  deaconesses  to  be  neglected?  If  it  be  answered,  that 
these  are  not  useful  now;  then  we  must  say,  that  we  look 
upon  apostolical  practice  to  be  binding  no  further  than  we 
judge  it  useful,  or  the  reason  of  it  holds;  which  is  as  much  as 
to  say,  of  itself  it  binds  not.  Fourthly.  Rites  and  customs 
apostolical  are  altered;  therefore  men  do  not  think  that  apos- 
tolical practice  doth  bind.  For  if  it  did,  there  could  be  no  al- 
teration of  things  agreeable  thereunto.  Now  let  any  one 
consider  but  these  few  particulars,  and  judge  how  far  the 
pleaders  for  a  divine  right  of  apostolical  practice,  do  look 
upon  themselves  as  bound  now  to  observe  them:  as  dipping 
in  baptism,  the  use  of  love-feasts,  community  of  goods,  the 
holy  kiss,  by  TertuUian^  called  signaculum  orationis:  or, 
"the  miniature  signet  of  Christian  love;"^  yet  none  look  upon 
themselves  as  bound  to  observe  them  now,  and  yet  all  ac- 
knowledge them  to  have  been  the  practice  of  the  apostles; 
and  therefore  certainly  though  when  it  may  serve  for  their 
purpose,  men  Will  make  apostolical  practice  to  found  a  divine 
right;  yet  when  they  are  gone  off  from  the  matter  in  hand, 
they  change  their  opinion  with  the  matter,  and  can  then  think 
themselves  free  as  to  the  observation  of  things  by  themselves 
acknowledged  to  be  apostolical.  Thus  we  are  at  last  come 
to  the  end  of  this  chapter,  which  we  have  been  the  longer 
upon,  because  the  main  hinge  of  this  controversy  did  lie  in 
the  practice  of  the  apostles,  which  I  suppose  now  so  far 
cleared  as  not  to  hinder  our  progress  towards  what  remains. 
We  come,  therefore,  from  the  apostles  to  the  primitive  church, 
to  see  whether  by  the  practice  of  anything  wherein  they 
looked  on  themselves  as  obliged  by  an  unalterable  law,  we 
observe  any  one  particular  form  of  church  government. 

Theod.  leg.  27,  tit.  de  Epis.  Cone.  Clialc.  cap.  14.  Cone.  Normat.  c.  73,  Epiph. 
hasr.  79.  V.  Fustell.  Not.  in  Can.  Univcrs.  Eccies.  p.  154,  &c.  Vossium  in 
Plin.  ep.  97,  1.  10.    Salmas.  in  Aparat.  p.  176. 

1  De  Orat. 

2  Of  Christian  not  of  carnal  love:  but  how  difficult  for  those  that  are  weak  to 
keep  the  two  separate;  therefore, they  had  better  let  it  alone  till  the  chaff  is  sepa- 
rated from  the  wheat — Am.  Ed. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  369 


CHAPTER    VII. 

The  churclics'  polity  in  the  ages  after  the  apostles  considered:  Evidences  thence 
that  no  certain  unalterable  form  of  church  government  was  delivered  to  them. 
1.  Because  church  power  did  enlarge  as  the  churches  did.  Whether  any  me- 
tropolitan churches  established  by  the  apostles.  The  seven  churches  of  Asia, 
whether  Metropolitical.  Philippi  no  metropolis,  either  in  a  civil  or  ecclesias- 
tical sense.  Several  degrees  of  enlargement  of  churches.  Churches  first 
Christians  in  whole  cities,  proved  by  several  arguments;  the  eulogy  an  evi- 
dence of  it.  Churches  extended  into  the  neighbouring  territories  by  the 
preaching  there  of  city  presbyters;  thence  comes  the  subordination  between 
them.  Churches  by  degrees  enlarged  to  diocessc;  from  thence  to  provinces. 
The  original  of  metropolitans  and  patriarchs.  2.  No  certain  form  used  in  all 
churches.  Some  churches  without  bishops, — Scots,  Goths.  Some  with  but 
one  bishop  in  their  whole  country.  Scythian,  Ethiopian  churches  how  go- 
verned. Many  cities  without  bishops.  Diocesses  much  altered.  Bishops 
discontinued  in  several  churches  for  many  years.  3.  Conforming  ecclesias. 
tical  government  to  the  civil  in  the  extent  of  diocesses.  The  suburbicarian 
churches  what.  Bishops  answerable  to  the  civil  governors.  Churches'  power 
rises  from  the  greatness  of  cities.  4.  Validity  of  ordination  by  presbyters  in 
places  where  bishops  were.  The  case  of  Ischyras  discussed;  instances  given 
of  ordination  by  presbyters  not  pronounced  null.  5.  The  church's  prudence 
in  managing  its  affairs,  by  the  several  canons,  provincial  synods.  Codex 
Canonum. 

§  1.  Having  largely  considered  the  actions  of  Christ,  and 
the  practice  of  the  apostles,  so  far  as  they  are  conceived  to 
have  reference  to  the  determining  the  certain  form  of  go- 
vernment in  the  church;  our  next  stage  is,  according  to  our 
propounded  method,  to  examine  what  light  the  practice  of 
the  church  in  the  ages  succeeding  tlie  apostles  will  cast  upon 
the  controversy  we  are  upon.  For  although,  according  to 
the  principles  established  and  laid  down  by  us,  there  can 
be  nothing  settled  as  a  universal  law  for  the  church  but 
what  we  find  in  scriptures:  yet  because  the  general  practice 
of  the  church  is  conceived  to  be  of  so  great  use  for  understand- 
ing what  the  apostles'  intentions,  as  well  as  actions  were,  we 
47 


370  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

shall  cheerfully  pass  over  this  Rubicon,  because  not  with  an 
intent  to  increase  divisions,  but  to  find  out  some  further  evi- 
dence of  a  way  to  compose  them.  Our  inquiry  then  is,  whether 
the  primitive  church  did  conceive  itself  obliged  to  observe  un- 
alterably one  individual  form  of  government,  as  delivered 
down  to  them  either  by  a  law  of  Christ,  or  an  universal  con- 
stitution of  the  apostles;  or  else  did  only  settle  and  order  things 
for  church  government,  according  as  it  judged  them  tend  most 
to  the  peace  and  settlement  of  the  church,  without  any  ante- 
cedent obligation,  as  necessarily  binding  to  observe  only  one 
course.  This  latter  I  shall  endeavour  to  make  out  to  have 
been  the  only  rule  and  law  which  the  primitive  church  ob- 
served as  to  church  government,  viz.  the  tendency  of  its  con- 
stitutions to  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church;  and  not  any 
binding  law  or  practice  of  Christ  or  his  apostles.  For  the 
demonstration  of  which,  I  have  made  choice  of  such  argu- 
ments as  most  immediately  tend  to  prove  it.  For,  if  the  power 
of  the  church  and  its  officers  did  increase  merely  from  the  en- 
largement of  the  bounds  of  churches;  if  no  one  certain  form  was 
observed  in  all  churches,  but  great  varieties  as  to  officers  and 
diocesses;  if  the  course  used  in  settling  the  power  of  the  chief 
officers  of  the  church  was  from  agreement  with  the  civil  go- 
vernment; if  notwithstanding  the  superiority  of  bishops,  the 
ordination  of  presbyters  was  owned  as  valid;  if  in  all  other 
things  concerning  the  church's  polity,  the  church's  prudence 
was  looked  on  as  a  sufficient  ground  to  establish  things;  then 
we  may  with  reason  conclude,  that  nothing  can  be  inferred 
from  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church,  demonstrative  of 
any  one  fixed  form  of  church  government  delivered  from  the 
apostles  to  them.  Having  thus  by  a  Hght  ssctoy^atia,  "  sketch," 
drawn  out  the  several  lines  of  the  portrait  of  the  polity  of  the 
ancient  church,  we  now  proceed  to  fill  them  up,  though  not 
with  that  life  which  it  deserves,  yet  so  far  as  the  model  of  this 
discourse  will  admit.  Our  first  argument  then  \sfrom  the  rise 
of  the  extent  of  the  pmver  of  church  governors,  which  I 
assert  not  to  have  been  from  any  order  of  tke  apostles,  but 
from  the  gradual  increase  of  the  churches  committed  to  their 
charge.  This  will  be  best  done  by  the  observation  of  the 
growth  of  churches,  and  how  proportionably  the  power  of  the 
governors  did  increase  with  it.  As  to  that,  there  are  four 
observable  steps  or  periods,  as  so  many  ages  of  growth  in  the 
primitive  churches.  First,  When  churches  and  cities  were 
of  the  same  extent.  Secondly,  When  ^churches  took  in  the 
adjoining  territories  with  the  villages  belonging  to  the  cities. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  371 

Thirdly,  When  several  cities  with  their  villages  did  associate 
for  church  government  in  the  same  province.  Fourthly, 
When  several  provinces  did  associate  for  government  in  the 
lloman  empire.     Of  these  in  their  order. 

§  2.  Tlie  first  period  of  church  government  observable  in 
the  primitive  church,  was,  when  churches  were  the  same  ivifh 
Christians  i?i  whole  cities.  For  the  clearing  of  this,  I  shall 
Jirst  show,  that  the  primitive  constitution  of  churches  was  in 
a  society  of  Christians  in  the  same  city.  Secondly,  I  shall 
consider  the  form  and  manner  of  government  then  observed 
among  them.  Thirdly,  What  relation  the  several  churches 
in  cities  had  to  one  another.  First,  That  the  primitive 
churches  were  Christians  of  whole  cities.  It  is  but  a  late 
and  novel  acceptation  of  the  word  church,  whereby  it  is  taken 
for  a  fixed  congregation  for  public  worship,  and  doubtless 
the  original  of  it  is  only  from  the  distinction  of  churches  in 
greater  cities  into  their  several  xv^mxo,,  ''  belonging  to  the 
Lord,"  or  public  places  for  meeting,  whence  the  Scotch  kirk, 
and  our  English  church;  so  that  from  calling  the  place  church, 
they  proceed  to  call  the  persons  there  meeting  by  that  name; 
and  thence  some  think  the  name  of  church  so  appropriated 
to  such  a  society  of  Christians  as  may  meet  at  such  a  place, 
that  they  make  it  a  matter  of  religion  not  to  call  those 
places  churches,  from  whence  originally  the  very  name,  as 
we  use  it,  was  derived.  But  this  may  be  pardoned  among 
other  religious  weaknesses  o(  well  meaning,  but  less  know- 
ing people.  A  church  in  its  primary  sense,  as  it  answers 
to  the  Greek  sxx^rjeM,  applied  to  Christians,  is  a  society 
of  Christians  living  together  in  one  city,  whether  meet- 
ing together  in  many  congregations,  or  one,  is  not  at  all 
material,  because  they  were  not  called  a  church  as  meeting 
together  in  one  p'ace,  but  as  they  were  a  society  of  Christians 
inhabiting  together  in  such  a  city:  not  but  that  I  think  a  so- 
ciety of  Christians  might  be  called  a  church,  wherever  they 
were,  whether  in  a  city  or  country,  but  because  the  first  and 
chief  mention  we  meet  with  in  scripture  of  churches,  is  of  such 
as  did  dwell  together  in  the  same  cities;  as  is  evident  from 
many  pregnant  places  of  scripture  to  this  purpose.  As  t/lcts 
xiv.  23,  compared  with  Titus  i.  5,  xat'  exxxt^^iav,  in  one  place, 
is  the  same  with  sca^a  7to%iv  in  the  other.  Ordaining  elders  "in 
every  church,"  and  ordaining  elders  "  in  every  city;"  which 
implies,  that  by  churches  then  were  meant  the  body  of  Chris- 
tians residing  in  the  cities;  over  which  the  apostles  ordained 
elders  to  rule  them.   So  ^cts  xvi.  4,  5,  "  as  they  went  through 


373  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

the  cities,"  &c.,  "and  so  were  the  churches  estabhshed  in  the 
faith."     The  churches  here  were  the  Christians  of  tiiose  cities 
which  they  went  through.      So  Acts  xx.  17,  "he  sent  to 
Ephesus  and  called  the  elders  of  the  church."     If  by  the 
elders  we  mean,  as  all  those  do  we  now  deal  with,  the  elders 
of  Ephesus,  then  it  is  here  evident,  that  the  elders  of  the 
church  and  of  the  city  are  all  one;  but  what  is  more  observ- 
able, verse  28,  he  calls  the  church  of  that  city:  "  Take  heed  to 
yourselves,  and  to  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Spirit  hath 
made  you  overseers,  to  feed  the  church  of  God."^     Where 
several  things  are  observable  to  our  purpose;  firsts  that  the 
body  of  Christians  in  Ephesus  is  called  to  Ttoifiwov  and  gj  ixxxsaia, 
the  flock  of  the  church,  and  not  the  several  flocks  and  churches, 
over  which  God  hath  made  you  bishops.     Secondly,  that  all 
these  spoken  to  were  such  as  had  a  pastoral  charge  of  this 
one   flock;   Paul  calls  them  tjnaxoiaovi,  and  chargeth   them 
TtoifjLaivstv,  to  do  the  work  of  a  pastor  towards  it.     So  that 
either  there  must  be  several  pastors  taking  the  pastoral  charge 
of  one  congregation,  which  is  not  very  suitable  with  the  prin- 
ciples of  those  1  now  dispute  against;  or  else  many  congrega- 
tions in  one  city  are  all  called  but  one  church,  and  one  flock, 
which  is  the  thing  I  plead  for.     And  therefore  it  is  an  obser- 
vation of  good  use  to  the  purpose  in  hand,  that  the  New 
Testament  speaking  of  the  church  in  a  province,  always  speaks 
of  them  in  the  plural  number,  "  as  the  churches  of  Judea," 
Gal.  i.  22,  1  Thes.  ii.  14.     "  The  churches  of  Samaria  and 
Galilee,"  Jicts  ix.  31.     "The  churches  of  Syria  and  Cilicia," 
Acts  XV.  41.     "  The  churches  of  Galatia,"  1  Cor.  xvi.  1,  Gal. 
i,  1,  2.     "The  churches  of  Asia,"  Rom.  xvi.  16,  Rev.  i.  11. 
But  when  it  speaks  of  any  particular  city,  then  it  is  always 
used  in  the  singular  number,  "  as  the  church  at  Jerusalem," 
Acts  viii.  1,  XV.  4,  22.     "The  church  at  xVntioch,"  Acts  xi. 
26,  xiii.  1.     "The  church  at  Corinth,"  1  Cor.  i.  2,  2  Cor.  i. 
1,  and  so  of  all  "the  seven  churches  of  Asia,"  the  church  of 
Ephesus,  Smyrna,  &c.     So  that  we  cannot  find  in  scripture 
the  least  footstep  of  any  diff'erence  between  a  church  and  the 
Christians  of  such  a  city;  whereas  had  the  notion  of  a  church 
been  restrained  to  a  particular  congregation,  doubtless  we 
should  have  found  some  difference  as  to  the  scriptures  speak- 
ing of  the  several  places.     For  it  is  scarce  imaginable  that  in 
all  those  cities  spoken  of,  (as  for  example  Ephesus,  where 

'   To    TTSIUVIOV    TTpOirSySTE  OUV    EttUTOlJ  XaJ    TTaVTl    TO)  'naiy.ntl)    £4>  oJ  U/^ttf  TO    1T)liVf*a  £0ST9 

tiriiHOTrovf,  TToijtAaiVEiv  Tvv  SKKKwa-tav  too  ©eow. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  373 

Paul  was  for  above  two  years  together,)  that  there  should  be 
no  more  converts  than  would  make  one  congregation.  Ac- 
cordingly in  the  times  immediately  after  the  apostles,  the  same 
language  and  custom  continued  still.     So  Clement  inscribes 

his  epistle:  'H  exx^ricli'a  -tov  Osov  ria^oixovsa  Fufxi^v  ■tri  sxx'kTiGta  -iov  Osov 

Tia^oixovari  Ko^iveov,  "The  church  of  God  dwelling  at  Rome,  to 
the  church  of  God  dwelling  at  Corinth."  So  by  that  it  is 
plain  that  all  the  believers  at  that  time  in  Rome,  made  up 
but  one  church,  as  likewise  did  they  at  Corinth.  So  Folycarp 
in  the  epistle  written  by  him  from  the  church  at  Smyrna  to 
the  church  at  Phylomilium,  'h  ixxxrioia  -tov  Bbov  57  •ma.^ot.xovaa. 
Xfiv^vav,  -tri  ^a^oixovaa  ev  <Pvioixi%vci,^  "the  church  of  God  dwelling 
at  Smyrna,  to  the  church  dwelling  at  Phylomilium;"  and  so  in 
his  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  iioXvxa^Ttoi  xm  60  aw  av-tov  Tt^sa- 
^vts^oL  iri  sxxxsgia  Tta^oixovayj  'I'at.rtrtotj,  "Polycarp  and  the  elders 
with  him  to  the  church  dwelling  at  Piiilippi."  Origeji  com- 
pares the  church  of  God  at  Athens,  Corinth,  Alexandria,  and 
other  places,  with  the  people  of  those  several  cities;^  and  so 
the  church's  senate  with  the  people's,  and  the  church's  a^x<^v, 
(that  is  his  word,)  "chief  ruler,"  with  the  mayor  of  those 
cities,  implying  thereby  that  as  there  was  one  civil  society  in 
such  places  to  make  a  city,  so  there  was  a  society  of  Christians 
incorporated  together  to  make  a  church.  So  that  a  churcii 
settled  with  a  full  power  belonging  to  it,  and  exercising  all 
acts  of  church  discipline  within  itself,  was  anciently  the  same 
with  the  society  of  Christians  in  a  city.  Not  but  that  the 
name  church  is  attributed  sometimes  to  families,  in  which 
sense  Terlullian  speaks:  Ubi  duo  aut  tres  sunt,  ibi  ecclesia 
est  licet  laid:  "  wherever  two  or  three"  (believers)  "  are, 
there  is  a  church,  although  laymen."^  And  may  on  the  same 
account  be  attributed  to  a  small  place,  such  as  many  imagine 
the  church  of  Cenchrea  to  be,  it  being  a  port  to  Corinth  on  the 
Sinus  Saronicus;  but  Stephanus  Byzantinus  calls  it  noxii  xai 
iTiivsiov  Kopt,v6ov,  "the  city  and  harbour  of  Corinth."''  Suidas 
saith  no  more  of  it  than  that  it  is  6./o^a  tonov,  "  the  name  of  a 
place."  Strabo  and  Pausanias  only  speak  of  the  situation 
of  it,  as  one  of  the  ports  of  Corinth,  lying  in  the  way  from 
TegaDa  to  Argos;^  nor  is  any  more  said  of  it  by  Pliny,  than 
that  it  answers  to  Lechasum,  the  port  on  the  other  side  upon 

'  Euseb.  1.  4,  cap.  13.     Usser.  Ignat.  ep.  p.  13. 

2  C.  Celsum.  1.  3,  p.  128,  etc. 

3  Exhort,  ad  oust.  4  Steph.  de  Urbibus. 
5  Strabo  Geogr.  I.  8;  Paus.  Corinth,  p.  44,  45. 


374  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

the  Sinus  Corinthiacus.^  Ubbo  Emmius,  in  his  description  of 
old  Greece,  calls  both  of  them  "  two  little  towns  with  famous 
harbours  on  the  coast  of  each  sea/'^  but  withal  adds  that  they 
were  duo  tirbis  emporia,  "  the  two  marts  of  Corinth,"  there- 
fore in  probability,  because  of  the  merchandize  of  that  city, 
they  were  much  frequented.  Cenchrea  was  about  twelve 
furlongs  distance  from  Corinth — where.  Parens  conjectures 
the  place  of  the  meeting  of  the  church  of  Corinth  was,^  because 
of  the  troubles  they  met  with  in  the  city,  and  therefore  they 
retired  thither  for  greater  conveniency  and  privacy:  which 
conjecture  will  appear  not  to  be  altogether  improbable,  when- 
we  consider  the  furious  opposition  made  by  the  Jews  against 
the  Christians  at  Corinth,  Jlcts  xviii.  12;  and  withal  how 
usual  it  was  both  for  Jews  and  Christians  to  have  their  place 
of  meeting  at  a  distance  from  the  city.  As  Acts  xvi.  13: 
"They  went  out  from  Philippi  to  the  river  side,  where  there 
was  a  proseucha,  or  a  place  of  prayer,  where  the  Jews  of 
Philippi  were  accustomed  to  meet."^  According  to  this  in- 
terpretation, the  church  at  Cenchrea  is  nothing  else  but  the 
church  of  Corinth  there  assembling:  as  the  reformed  church 
at  Paris  hath  their  meeting  place  at  Charenton,  which  might 
be  called  the  church  of  Charenton,  from  their  public  assem- 
blies there;  but  the  church  of  Paris  from  the  residence  of  the 
chief  officers  and  people  in  that  city.  So  the  church  of  Co- 
rinth might  be  called  the  church  at  Cenchrea  upon  the  same 
-account,  there  being  no  evidence  at  all  of  any  settled  govern- 
ment there  at  Cenchrea  distinct  from  that  at  Corinth,  So  that 
this  place,  which  is  the  only  one  brought  against  that  position 
I  have  laid  down,  hath  no  force  at  all  against  it.  I  conclude 
then,  that  churches  and  cities  were  originally  of  equal  extent, 
and  that  the  formal  constitution  of  a  church  lies  not  in  their 
capacity  of  assembling  in  one  place,  but  acting  as  a  society  of 
Christians  embodied  together  in  one  city,  having  officers  and 
rulers  among  themselves,  equally  respecting  the  whole  number 
of  believers:  which  leads  to  the  second  thing,  the  ivay  and 
manner  then  used  for  the  modelling  the  goveriiment  of  these 
churches,  which  may  be  considered  in  a  double  period  of  time, 
either  before  several  congregations  in  churches  were  settled,  or 
after  those  we  now  call  parishes  were  divided.  First,  before 
distinct  congregations  were  settled;  and  this,  as  far  as  I  can  find, 

1  Plin.  hist.  I.  4,  c.  4. 

2  Oppidulu  duo  cum  duobus  praeclaris  portubus  in  ora  utriusque,  maris. — Em- 
mius dc  Grsec.  Vet.  11.  2. 

3  Parcus  in  Roin.  xvi.  1.  ^  V.  Hcin.^.  Exercis.  sacr,  1. 5,  cap.  10. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  375 

was  not  only  during  the  apostles'  times,  but  for  a  competent 
time  after,  generally  during  the  persecution  of  churclies.  For 
we  must  distinguish  between  such  a  number  of  believers  as 
could  not  conveniently  assemble  in  one  place,  and  the  distri- 
buting of  believers  into  their  several  distinct  congregations,  I 
cannot  see  any  reason  but  to  think  that  in  the  great  churches 
of  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Ephesus,  and  the  like,  there  were  more 
believers  than  could  well  meet  together,  considering  the  state 
of  those  times;  but  that  they  were  then  distributed  into  their 
several  Srn^ot,  "peoples  or  centuries,"  (as  the  Athenians  and 
Romans  divided  their  people,)  i.  e.  into  several  worshipping 
congregations  with  peculiar  officers,  I  see  no  reason  at  all  for  it. 
They  had  no  such  conveniences  then  of  settling  several  congre- 
gations under  their  particular  pastors:  but  all  the  Christians  in 
a  city  looked  upon  themselves  as  one  body,  and  met  together 
as  occasion  served  them,  where  either  the  principal  of  the  go- 
vernors of  the  church,  the  rt^affo^,  "the  chief,"  in  Justin  Mar- 
tyr^s  language,  did  perform  the  solemn  part  of  divine  worship, 
or  some  other  of  the  elders  that  were  present  with  them.  Is 
it  not  strange  for  men  to  dream  of  set  times,  and  canonical 
hours,  and  public  places  of  assemblies  at  that  time,  when 
their  chief  times  of  meeting  were  in  the  night,  or  very  early 
in  the  morning,  which  Pliny^  calls  conventus  antelucaniis, 
"  an  assembly  before  daylight,"  whence  they  were  called  late- 
brosa  et  lucifugax  ncitio^  "  a  nation  hiding  in  caves  and 
shunning  the  light,"  and  were  fain  to  make  use  of  wax  lights, 
(which  from  that  custom  the  papists  continue  still  in  their 
tapers  always  burning  upon  the  altar f  from  what  reason  I 
know  not,  unless  to  show  the  darkness  of  error  and  superstition 
which  that  church  lies  under  still,)  and  the  places  of  the  Chris- 
tian-meetings were  generally  either  some  private  rooms,  or 
some  grotis  or  cryptx,^  "  hidden  places,"  under  ground  where 
they  might  be  least  discerned  or  taken  notice  of;  or  in  the 
Ccemeteria,  the  martyrum  memoinas,  "  the  cemetery,  the  me- 
morials of  the  martyrs,"  as  they  called  them,  where  their  com- 
mon assemblies  were.  Thence  Pontius  Paulinus,^  speaking 
of  the  edict  of  Valerian  against  the  Christians,  "  It  is  ordered, 
that  they  make  no  small  council  chambers,  nor  enter  their 

1  Ep.  95, 1.  10. 

2  Tcrful.  de  Cor,  Militis  ad  Uxor.  I,  2,  c.  4. 
•■'  V.  Vossium  in  Plin.  ep.  p.  45, 

■*  V,  Gcrsom.  Buccr.  de  gubern,  Eccl,  p.  220, 

s  V.  Juste],  Not,  in  Cod.  Can.  Eccic?.  n.  p.  200,  et  Biondcll  Ap.  s,  3,  de  Basil, 
originn,  p.  216,  p,  243,j),  13],  ed,  CI,  Samas. 


376  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

cemeteries."^  Indeed,  when  they  had  any  public  Uberty 
granted  them,  they  were  so  mindful  of  their  duties  of  public 
profession  of  the  faith,  as  to  make  use  of  public  places  for  the 
worship  of  God,  as  appears  by  Lampridius  in  the  life  of  Alex- 
ander Severus,  "  When  the  Christians  had  occupied  a  certain 
place,  which  had  been  common,  the  tavern-keepers  said,  op- 
posing them,  that  it  belonged  to  them.  He  wrote  back,  that 
it  was  better  that  God  should  be  worshipped  there,  in  any 
manner,  than  that  it  should  be  given  up  to  the  tavern-keep- 
ers."2  But  in  times  of  persecution  it  is  most  improbable  that 
there  should  be  any  fixed  congregations  and  places,  when  the 
Christians  were  so  much  hunted  after,  and  inquired  for,  as 
appears  by  the  former  epistle  of  Pliny,  and  the  known  re- 
script of  Trajan  upon  it,  so  often  quoted  by  Tertullian? 
They  did  meet  often  it  is  certain,  ad  con f seder andiim  disci- 
plinam,  "  to  agree  to  their  discipline,"  at  which  meetings 
Tertullian  tells  us,  prsesident prohati  quique  senior es.  "all 
the  approved  elders  presided,"  which  he  elsewhere  explains 
by  concessus  ordinis,  "  the  bench  of  officers"  in  the  church, 
which  did  in  conunon  consult  for  the  good  of  the  church, 
without  any  cantonizing  the  Christians  into  several  distinct 
and  fixed  congregations.  But  after  that  believers  were  much 
increased,  and  any  peace  or  liberty  obtained,  they  then  began 
to  contrive  the  distribution  of  the  work  among  the  several 
officers  of  the  church,  and  to  settle  the  several  bounds  over 
which  every  presbyter  was  to  take  his  charge;  but  yet  so,  as 
that  every  presbyter  retained  a  double  aspect  of  his  office;  the 
one  particular  to  his  charge;  the  other  general  respecting  the 
church  in  common.  For  it  is  but  a  weak  conceit  to  imagine 
that  after  the  settling  of  congregations,  every  one  had  a  dis- 
tinct presbytery  to  rule  it,  of  which  we  find  not  any  obscure 
footsteps  in  any  of  the  ancient  churches;  but  there  was  still 
one  ecclesiastical  senate  which  ruled  all  the  several  congrega- 
tions of  those  cities  in  common,  of  which  the  several  presbyters 
of  the  congregations  were  members,  and  in  which  the  bishop 
acted  as  the  president  of  the  senate,  for  the  better  governing 
the  affairs  of  the  church.  And  thus  we  find  Cornelius  dii  Rome 
sitting  there  cum  florentissimo  clero,  "with  the  most  dis- 
tinguished clergy:"   thus   Cyprian*  at  Carthage,  one   who 

'  Jnssum  est  ut  nulla  conciliabula  faciant,  neque  CEBtneteria  ingrediantur. 

2  Quum  Cliristiani  quendam  locum  qui  publicus  fuerat  occupasscnt,  contrk 
popinarii  diccrent,  sibi  eum  deberi;  rescripsit,  melius  esse  ut  quomodocunque 
illic  Dcus  colatur,  quam  popinariis  dedatur. 

3  Apol.  c.  2.  <  Epigr.  ep.  s.  21. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  377 

pleads  as  much  as  any  for  obedience  to  bishops,  and  yet  none 
more  evident  for  the  presence  and  joint  concurrence  of  the 
clergy  at  all  church  debates;  whose  resolution  from  his  first 
entrance  into  his  bisliopric,  was,  to  do  all  things  communi 
concilio  clericorum^  "  with  the  common  council  of  the 
cU  rgy;"  and  says,  they  were  cum  episcopo  sacerdotali 
honore  coiijuncti,  "  in  ministerial  honour  they  were  joined 
\v\\.\\  the  bishop."  Victor  at  Rome  decreed  Easter  to  be 
kept  on  the  Lord's  day,  collatione  facta  cum  presbyteris 
et  diaconibus,  "a  dispute  having  been  made  with  the  pres- 
byters and  deacons,"  as  DamasuH^  the  supposed  author 
of  the  lives  of  the  popes  tells  us.  In  the  proceedings  against 
Novatus  at  Rome,  we  have  a  clear  testimony  of  the  con- 
currence of  presbyters:  where  a  great  synod  was  called,  as 
Eusebius^  expressoth  it,  oi  sixty  bishops,  but  more  presbyters 
and  deacons:  and  what  is  more  full  to  our  purpose,  not  only 
the  several  presbyters  of  the  city,  but  the  country  pastors, 
(fioi;  xata  x<^^o.v  rtoi^svotv  ^laexc^afjisvav,)  '•  ministering  and  visiting 
from  place  to  place,"  did  likewise  give  their  advice  about  that 
business.  At  this  time  Cornelius  tells  as  there  were  forty- 
six  presbyters  in  that  one  city  of  Rome,  who  concurred  with 
him  in  condemning  Novatus^  So  at  Antioch  in  the  case 
of  Paulus  Samosatenus  we  find  a  synod  gathered,  con- 
sisting of  bishops,  presbyter's,  and  deacons,  and  in  their  name 
the  synodal  epistle  is  penned  and  directed  to  the  same  in  all 
the  catholic  church.  At  the  council  of  Eliberis  in  Spain, 
were  present  but  nineteen  bishops  and  twenty-six  presby- 
ters. The  case  between  Sylvanus^  bishop  of  Cirta  in  Africa, 
and  Nundinaris  the  deacon,  was  referred  by  Purpurius  to 
the  clergy  to  decide  it.  For  the  presence  of  presbyters  at 
synods,  instances  are  brought  '6%^  tio^vxaxu,  "from  the  whole 
budget,"  by  Blondell  in  \\\s.Jipology.^  And  that  they  concurred 
in  governing  the  church,  and  not  only  by  their  counsel  but 
authority,  appears  from  the  general  sense  of  the  church  of 
God,  even  when  episcopacy  was  at  the  highest:  Nazianzen 
speaking  of  the  office  of  presbyters,  uti  -Kutovpyiav  zpV^fyn-v  si'- 
■ti  riyifioviav,  he  kuew  not  "whether  he  ought  to  call  it,  ministry 
or  superintendency;"^  and  those  who  are  made  presbyters 
iTi''  to  a^x^w  arajSatroDot  arto  tov  a^x^dOat,,  "from  being  rulcd,  they 

'  Ep.6,  10,  18,24,33,  34,28,  32. 

2  Ep.  58,  Apud.  Bin.  torn.  l.Conc.  p.  91. 

3  Eccles.  hist.  1.  5,  cap.  43.  *  Eccles.  hist.  1.7,  cap.  30. 

6  Apud.  Nun.  Cubanapb.  Consul.  ^  p.  200. 

7  Orat.  p.  3. 

48 


378  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

ascend  to  be  rulers  themselves."  And  their  power  by  him, 
is  in  several  places  called  •^x'^^  'tjysixovia,  7t^ogaai,a  •KpotSpta,  "  the 
direction  of  souls,  superintendence,  presidency;""  they  are 
called  by  him,  Ttoifiivsi,  Is^si,?,  apoiga'tsi,  ^pogatai,  a^xov-tss,  "  pas- 
tors, priests,  presidents  or  chiefs,  superintendents,  rulers."^ 
Chrysostom  gives  this  as  the  reason  of  Paurs  passing  over 
from  bishops  to  deacons  without  naming  presbyters,  "  because 
there  is  no  great  matter  of  difference  between  a  bishop  and 
presbyters,  for  these  likewise  have  the  instruction  and  charge 
of  the  church  committed  to  them;"^  which  words  Theophylact, 
C ht'y SOS 1 0777 's  echo,  repeats,  which  the  council  oi  Mquen  thus 
expresseth,  "but  it  seems  to  be  the  ministry  of  the  presbyters, 
to  preside  over  the  church  of  Christ,  so  that  in  doctrine  and  in 
the  office  of  preaching,  they  may  rank  before  the  people,  nor 
should  they  appear  negligent  in  any  duty."^  Clemens  Jilex- 
a7idrinns  before  all  these,  speaking  of  himself  and  his  fellow 
presbyters,  notjufrf?  ioy-iv  U  ■fwi/  £xx7^y;ai,uiv  cpotiyovfisvoi,,  "  we  are 
pastors  and  rulers  of  the  churches."^  And  that  proper  acts 
of  discipline  were  performed  by  them,  appears  both  by  the 
epistles  of  the  Roman  clergy  about  their  preserving  discipline 
to  Cyprian,  and  likewise  by  the  act  of  that  clergy  in  excluding 
Marcion  from  communion  with  them.  So  the  presbyters  of 
the  church  of  Ephesiis  excommunicated  Noetiisf  for  after 
they  had  cited  him  before  them,  and  found  him  obstinate  in 

his  heresy,  f|f woav  avr'  irii  £xx%y]CSiai  ajxa  fotj  vv  auT'OD  Soyjua  j/sj-ia^'/j- 

tsvficvoi,;,  "  they  put  both  him  and  those  that  taught  his  doc- 
trine out  of  the  church  together."^  Thus  we  see  what  the 
manner  of  government  in  the  church  was  now:  the  bishop 
sitting  as  the  n lyj  «« the  naseeyah,  the  prince,"  in  the  sanhe- 
dri7n,  and  the  presbyters  <jj  Gwibi^tvtai,  -tuv  iTtiaxonav,  "as  fellow 
counsellors  of  the  bishop,"  as  Ignatius  expresseth  it,  acting 
as  the  common  council  of  the  church  to  the  bishop;  the  bishop 
being  as  the  ae,x<^v  tri^  sxxXrjSMi,  "ruler  of  the  church,"  answering 
to  the  apx^v  tyiirtoxsui,  "  chief  of  the  city;"  and  the  presbytery 
as  the  ^ovxrj  tru  sxx^^aia?,  "the  council  of  the  church,"  answer- 
ing to  the  /SovTij?  xaO  sxasfjv  jtoxw,  "  couucil  in  e\erY  city,"  as 
Origen  compares   them.^     Whereby  he   fully  describes  the 

1  P.  341,  37,  41.  2p.  29,  42.     JnlTim.hom.il. 

3  'Otj  ov  Tcuhv  ro  fAnrov  nai  ya.^  nat  avroi  ^iSacmaXtav  eia-iv  avahhiyy,twi,  xai  Tt^og-aa-iav 
TB?  EJtxXijiria?. 

4  Presbytcrorum  ver6  qui  prsBsunt  ecclesise  Christ!  ministerium  esse  videtur, 
utin  doctrina  preesint  populis  et  in  officio  praBdicandi,  nee  in  aiiquo  desides  ap- 
parcant. — Cone.  Aquis.  c.  5,  1. 

5  Paedag.  1. 2,  cap.  6.  ^  Epiph.  hasr.  42. 

7  Id.  haeres.  57,  c.  1.  "  C.  Celsum.  1.  3,  p.  129. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  379 

form  of  government  in  his  time  in  the  church,  which  was 
by  an  ecclesiastical  senate,  and  a  president  in  it,  ruling 
the  society  of  Christians  in  every  city.  So  that  the  pres- 
bytery of  a  great  city  joining  together  for  government, 
were  never  accounted  a  provincial  assembly,  but  only  the 
senate  for  government  of  the  church  in  the  whole  city.  The 
erecting  presbyteries  for  every  particular  congregation  in 
a  city,  is  a  stranger  to  the  ancient  constitution  of  churches, 
and  hath  given  the  greatest  rise  to  the  independency  of  par- 
ticular congregations.  For  if  every  particular  congrega- 
tion be  furnished  with  a  government  within  itself,  then  men 
are  apt  presently  to  think  that  there  is  no  necessity  of  subor- 
dination of  it  to  any  higher  church  power.  Whereas,  if  that 
primitive  constitution  of  churches  be  held,  that  they  are  socie- 
ties of  Christians  under  an  ecclesiastical  senate  in  a  city,  then 
it  is  evident  that  the  congregations  must  truckle  under  the 
great  body,  as  receiving  their  government  by,  and  their  officers 
from  that  senate  of  the  church,  which  superintends,  and  orders 
the  affairs  of  that  whole  body  of  Christians  residing  in  such  a 
place.  And  this  crumbling  of  church  power  into  every  congre- 
gation is  a  thing  absolutely  disowned  by  the  greatest,  and  most 
learned  patrons  of  presbytery  beyond  the  seas  as  may  be  seen 
both  in  Calvin^  Beza,  Salmasius,  Blondell,  Gersome,  Bucer 
and  others.  It  is  much  disputed  when  the  first  division  of  paro- 
chial congregations  in  cities  began;  Platina  attributes  it  to 
Evaristus,  and  so  doth  Damasiis,  Hie  titulos  in  urbe  Roma 
divisit  presbyteris,  "  He  divided  the  several  parish  churches  to 
the  presbyters;"  these  were  called  then  Tituli:^  Baronius  gives 
a  double  reason  of  the  name;  either  from  goods  belonging  to 
the  prince's  exchequer,  which  have  some  sign  imprinted  upon 
them,  that  it  may  be  known  whose  they  are.  So  saith  he,  the 
sign  of  the  cross  was  put  upon  the  churches  to  make  it  known 
that  they  were  devoted  to  God's  service;  or  else  they  are 
called  Tituli,  because  the  several  presbyters  did  receive  their 
titles  from  them;  but,  by  the  leave  of  the  great  Cardinal 
another  reason  may  be  given  of  the  name  more  proper  than 
either  of  these.  It  hath  been  observed  by  learned  men,  that 
the  general  meetings  of  the  Christians  were  in  the  Coemeteria 
or  dormitories  of  Christians;  so  they  called  the  sepulchres 
then,  which  were  great  and  capacious  vaults,  fit  to  receive 
many  people  in  them;  two  chief  grounds  of  the  Christians 
meeting  in  those  places:  the  first  was  their  own  security,  be- 

'  A.  Dom.  112,  n.  4,  5,  6. 


380  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

cause  the  heathens  looked  on  it  as  a  matter  of  religion, 
non  manes  temerare  sepultos,  "not  to  disturb  the  ashes  of 
the  dead;"  but  the  chief  reason  was  to  encourage  themselves 
to  suffer  martyrdom  by  the  examples  of  those  who  had  gone 
before,  and  lay  buried  there;  thence  they  were  called  mar- 
tyrorum  memorix,  "to  the  memory  of  the  martyrs,"  because 
they  did  call  to  mind  their  actions  and  constancy  in  the  faith. 
Now  from  these  Coemeteria  was  afterwards  the  original  of 
churches,  (whence  persons  most  reverenced  for  piety  were 
wont  still  to  be  buried  in  churches,  not  for  any  holiness  of  the 
place,  but  because  in  such  places  the  martyrs  lay  buried,)  the 
churches  behig  raised  over  the  vaults  wherein  the  martyrs 
lay  entombed.  Now  churches  being  raised  from  these  ceme- 
teries, which  were  called  memoriae  martyroi'UTn,  that  they 
might  still  retain  somewhat  intimating  their  former  use,  were 
called  tiiuli,  "  monuments  or  memorials."  For  titiilus,  as 
Sanctius  observes,  is  "  some  sign  or  monument,  which  may 
intimate  that  something  lies  concealed,  or  has  happened 
there;"^  thence  statues  are  called  tiiuli.  So  Gen.  xxxv.  20. 
<' Jacob  erected  a  monument  over  the  grave:"^  and  Gen. 
xxviii.  IS.  "Then  Jacob  rising  in  the  morning,  took  the 
stone,  which  he  had  placed  beneath  his  head,  and  set  it  up 
for  a  monument."^  So  Msalom,  2  Sam.  xviii,  18,  "  Set  up 
for  himself  a  monument.""*  So  that  what  was  erected  to 
maintain  and  preserve  the  memory  of  anything,  was  called 
titulus;  and  thence  the  churches  being  built  upon  the  ceme- 
teries of  the  martyrs,  were  on  that  account  called  tiiuli,  be- 
cause intended  for  the  preservation  of  their  memories.  This 
account  of  the  original  of  the  name  I  leave  to  the  judgment 
of  learned  men;  but  to  proceed.  I  confess,  it  seems  not  pro- 
bable to  me  that  these  tiiuli  were  so  soon  divided  as  the 
time  of  Evaristus,  who  lived  in  the  time  of  Trajan,  when 
the  persecution  was  hot  against  the  Christians;  but  Damasus 
seems  not  to  believe  himself;  for  in  the  life  of  Dionysius,  he 
saith,  "  He  divided  the  churches  into  cemeteries  and  parishes, 
and  instituted  diocesses."*  But  most  probably  it  began  as 
soon  as  the  churches  enjoyed  any  ease  and  peace,  it  being 
so  necessary  for  the  convenient  meeting  of  such  a  multitude 

'  Sigiium  aliquod  aul  monumentum  quod  docet  ibi  latere  aliquid  aut  accidisse, 
cujus  nolumus  perire  momoriam. — In  Ezek.  xxxix.  15. 

2  Ercxit  Jacob  titiilum  super  scpulciirum,  as  the  vulgar  Latin  renders  it. 

3  Surgens  ergo   Jacob  mane   tulit   lapidem  quern   supposucrut  capiti  suo,  et 
erexit  in  titulum. 

*  lOrexit  sibi  titulum. 

6  Hie  presbyteris  ecclesias  divlsit,  ccemeteria,  parochias,  et  dioeceses  inslituil. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  3S1 

of  Christians  as  there  was  then.  In  the  life  of  Marcelhis, 
about  forty  years  after  Dionysius,  we  read  of  twenty-five 
titles  in  the  chinch  of  Rome;  of  which  number,  what  use  is 
made  for  interpreting  the  number  666!  may  be  seen  in  Mr. 
Patterns  ingenious  tract  on  that  subject.  But  when  after- 
wards these  titles  were  much  increased,  those  presbyters  that 
were  placed  in  the  ancient  titles  which  were  the  chief  among 
them,  were  called  cardinales  preshyteri,^  which  were  then 
looked  on  as  chief  of  the  clergy,  and  therefore  were  the  chief 
members  of  the  council  of  presbyters  to  the  bishop.  So  that 
at  this  day,  the  conclave  at  Rome,  and  the  pope's  consistory, 
is  an  evident  argument  in  this  great  degeneracy  of  it,  of  the 
primitive  constitution  of  the  government  of  the  church  there, 
by  a  bishop  acting  with  his  college  of  presbyters.  Neither 
was  this  proper  to  Rome  alone,  but  to  all  other  great  cities, 
which,  when  ihe  number  of  presbyters  was  grown  so  great 
that  they  could  not  conveniently  meet,  and  join  with  the 
bishop  for  ordering  the  government  of  the  church,  there  were 
some,  as  the  chief  of  them,  chosen  out  from  the  rest,  to  be  as 
the  bishop's  council,  and  these  in  many  places,  as  at  Milan, 
Ravenna,  Naples,  &c.  were  called  cardinales  presbyteri,  as 
well  as  at  Rome;  which  were  abrogated  by  Pius  Quintus, 
1568:  but  the  memory  of  them  is  preserved  still  in  cathedral 
churches;  in  the  chapter  there,  where  the  dean  was  nothing 
else  but  the  archipresbyter,  and  both  dean  and  prebendaries 
were  to  be  assistant  to  the  bishop  in  the  regulating  the  church 
affairs  belonging  to  "the  city,  while  the  churches  were  con- 
tained therein.  So  much  shall  suffice  for  the  model  of  go- 
vernment in  the  churches,  while  they  were  contained  within 
the  same  precincts  with  the  city  itself. 

§  3.  We  come,  in  the  third  place,  to  consider  what  relation 
these  churches  in  greater  cities  had  one  to  another,  and  to  tfie 
less  cities  which  were  under  them.  And  here  the  grand 
question  to  be  discussed  is  this;  whether  the  churches  in 
greater  cities  by  apostolical  institution,  had  the  govenniieiit 
ecclesiastical,  not  only  of  the  less  villages  under  them,  but 
likewise  of  all  less  cities  under  the  civil  jurisdiction  of  the 
metropolis.  The  affirmative  is  of  late  asserted  by  some  per- 
sons of  great  renown  and  learning.  The  first  I  find  maintain- 
ing this  hypothesis  of  the  divine  right  of  metropolitans^  is 
Fregevilxns  Gantius,  one  of  the  reformed  church  of  France, 
who  hath  spent  a  wliole  chapter  in  his  Palma  Christiana, 

1  V.  Onuphrium  de  Episcop.  tul.  et  Div.  Cardinalium. 


383  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

"Christian  Palm,"^  to  that  purpose,  and  hath  made  use  of  the 
same  arguments  which  have  been  since  improved  by  all  the 
advantages  which  the  learning  of  a  reverend  doctor  could  add 
to  them.  But  because  this  principle  manifestly  destroys  the 
main  foundation  of  this  discourse,  it  is  here  requisite  to  ex- 
amine the  grounds  on  which  it  stands,  that  thereby  it  may  be 
fully  cleared  whether  the  subordination  of  less  churches  to 
greater,  did  only  arise  from  the  mutual  association  of  churches 
among  themselves,  or  from  apostolical  appointment  and  insti- 
tution. The  two  pillars  which  the  divine  right  of  metropoli- 
tans is  built  upon,  are  these:  First,  that  the  cities  spoken  of 
in  the  New  Testament,  in  which  churches  were  planted,  were 
metropolitan,  in  the  civil  sense.  Secondly,  that  the  apostles 
did  so  far  follow  the  model  of  the  civil  government  as  to  plant 
metropolitan  churches  in  those  cities.  If  either  of  these  prove 
infirm,  the  fabric  erected  upon  them  must  needs  fall;  and  I 
doubt  not,  but  to  make  it  appear  that  both  of  them  are.  I 
begin  witli  the  first.  The  notion  of  a  metropolis  is  confessed 
to  be  this:  a  city  wherein  the  courts  of  a  civil  judicature  were 
kept  by  the  Roman  governors,  under  whose  jurisdiction  the 
whole  province  was, contained.  The  cities  chiefly  insisted  on, 
are  the  seven  cities  of  the  Lydian  Asia,  and  Philippi,  which 
is  called  Tt^u^tri  jtoxii  Maxe^ovMi,  "the  first  city  of  Macedon." 
As  for  the  cities  of  the  Proconsular  Asia,  although  the  bounds 
and  limits  of  it  are  not  so  clear  as  certainly  to  know  whether 
all  these  cities  were  comprehended  under  it  or  not,  Strabo 
telling  us  that  Phrygia,  Lydia,  Caria  and  Mysia,  bvohiax^ita 
7tagarti.5;T'ot7a  ft?  aVK'Tj-Ka,  "fall  in  the  way  of  one  another  hardly 
to  be  distinguished;"^  it  being  true  of  all  four  which  was  said 
of  Mysia  and  Phrygia. ^ 

The  Phrygian  and  Mysian  borders  are  distinct;  but  it  is 
hard  to  find  them  out,  for  Laodicea  is  by  Ptolomy  referred 
to  Caria;  Slraho  and  many  others  place  it  in  Phrygia — only 
Stephamis  Bizantinus  places  it  in  Lydia;  but  granting  all 
that  is  produced  by  the  late  most  excellent  Primate  of  Armagh 
in  his  learned  discourse  of  the  Proconsular  Asia,  to  prove  all 
these  seven  cities  to  be  in  the  bounds  of  this  Lydian  Asia,  yet 
it  is  far  from  being  evident,  that  all  these  cities  were  metropoli- 
tan in  the  civil  sense.  For  Strabo  tells  us,  "that  the  Romans 
did  not  divide  these  places  by  nations,  but  according  to  the 


>  Palm.  Christiana,  cap.  4.  2  Geogr.  1.  13. 

^  Xwpn;  Ta    Muo-iBV  Hat   ^joyajv  o^io'fA.ctra,  to   Je   Jiofi^Eiv  ^a'Ke'rrov, — "  It  is  difficult 
to  define  the  boundaries  of  the  regions,  whether  of  Mysia  or  Phrygia." 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  '  383 

diocesses  wherein  they  kept  their  courts,  and  exercised  judi- 
cature."^  These  cities  wlierein  the  courts  of  judicature  were 
kept,  were  metropolitan  and  no  other.  Of  five  of  thena,  Lao- 
dicea,  Smyrna,  Sardis,  Ephesus  and  Pergaraus,  Pliny  saith,  , 
that  the  Conventus,  the  civil  courts,  were  kept  in  them,  and 
they  had  jurisdiction  over  the  other  places  by  him  mentioned;^ 
but  for  the  other  two,  Thyatiraand  Philadelphia,  Philadelphia 
is  ex[)ressly  mentioned  as  one  of  those  cities  which  was  under 
ihejurisdictio  Sardiana,  "the  Lydian  jurisdiction,"  so  far  was 
it  from  being  a  metropolis  of  itself;  and  Thyatira,  mentioned  as 
one  of  the  ordinary  cities,  without  any  additional  honour  at  all 
to  it.  And  for  Philadelphia,  it  was  so  far  unlikely  to  be  a  me- 
tropolis, that  Strabo  tells  us  it  was  angfxw  Ttxrjpt]^,  "very  subject 
to  earthquakes,"  and  therefore  had  very  few  inhabitants;  those 
that  are,  live  most  part  in  the  fields,  where  they  have  svSaifxova 
yrjv,  "a  very  rich  soil;"  but  Sirabu  for  all  that,  wonders  at  the 
boldness  of  the  men  that  durst  to  venture  their  lives  there;  and 
most  of  all  admires  what  was  in  those  men's  heads  who  first 
built  a  city  there.  Is  it  then  any  ways  probable  that  this  should 
be  chosen  for  a  metropolis,  in  such  an  abundance  of  fair  and 
rich  cities  as  lay  thereabout?  But  a  sa/vo  is  found  out  for 
Pliny's  not  mentioning  them  as  metropolitan,  because  the  ad- 
dition of  these  two  mother  cities  seems  to  have  been  made 
when  Vespasian  added  those  many  new  provinces  to  the  old 
government  which  Suetonius  speaks  of;^  but  this  salvo  doth 
not  reach  the  sore:  for,  first,  P/Z/iy  wrote  his  Natural  History, 
not  in  the  beginning,  but  toward  the  latter  end  of  the  empire  of 
Flavins  Vespasianiis,  when  Titus  had  been  six  times  consul 
as  he  himself  saith  in  his  preface;  therefore  if  there  had  been 
any  such  change,  Pliny  would  have  mentioned  it.  Secondly, 
the  provinces  added  by  Vespasian,  are  expressly  set  down  by 
Suetonius,  viz.  Achaia,  Lysia,  Rhodus,  Byzantium,  Samos, 
Thracia,  Cilicia,  Comagena,  not  the  least  mention  of  the  Ly- 
dian or  Proconsular  Asia,  or  any  alteration  made  in  the  me- 
tropolis there.  But  yet  there  is  a  further  attempt  made  to 
make  Philadelphia  a  metropolis,  which  is  from  a  subscription 
of  Eustathius  in  the  council  of  Constantinople  sub  Menna^ 
act  5,  who  calls  himself  the  bishop  of  the  metropolis  of  Phila- 
delphia. But  what  validity  there  is  in  such  a  subscription  in 
the  time  of  the  fifth  century  to  prove  a  metropolis  in  the  first, 
let  any  one  judge  that  doth  but  consider  how  common  a 

1  Geogr.  1.  13,  p.  432,  ed.  Is.  Casaub. 

2  Nat.  Hist.  1.  5,  c.  29  et  30.  3  Sueton.  in  Vespas.  c.  8. 


384  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

thing  it  was  to  alter  metropolitan  cities,  especially  after  the 
new  disposition  of  the  Roman  empire  by  Constantino.  Bnt 
if  we  stand  to  the  Notitise  to  determine  this  controversy,  which 
are  certainly  more  to  be  valued  than  a  single  subscription,  the 
metropolitanship  of  these  cities  of  the  Lydian  Asia  will  be 
irrecoverably  overthrown.  For  in  the  old  Notitia,  taken  out 
of  the  Vatican  MS.,  and  set  forth  with  the  rest  by  Carolus  d, 
Sancto  Paulo  in  his  Appendix  to  his  Geographia  Sacra, 
Ephesus  is  made  the  metropolis  of  the  province  of  Asia,  Sar- 
dis  of  Lydia,  Laodicea  of  Phrygia  Capatiana,  as  it  is  there 
written  for  Pacatiana,bnt  Pergamus  placed  in  the  province  of 
Caesarea  Cappadocia,  Philadelphia  under  Sardis,  with  Thya- 
tira.  In  the  Notitia  attributed  to  Hierocles  under  the  me- 
tropolis of  Ephesus  is  placed  Smyrna  and  Pergamus,  under 
Sardis,  I'hyatira  and  Philadelphia;  so  likewise  in  the  Notitia 
of  the  French  king's  library.  So  that  neither  in  the  civil 
nor  ecclesiastical  sense  can  we  find  these  seven  cities  to  be  all 
metropolitan.  We  therefore  observe  St.  PauVs  course,  and 
leaving  Asia,  we  come  into  Macedonia,  where  we  are  told, 
that  Philippi  was  the  metropolis  of  Macedonia:  I  know  not 
whether  with  greater  incongruity  to  the  civil  or  ecclesiastical 
sense:  in  both  which  I  doubt  not  but  to  n)ake  it  appear,  that 
Philippi  was  not  the  metropolis  of  Macedonia,  and  therefore 
the  bishops  there  mentioned  could  not  be  the  bishops  of  the 
several  cities  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Phillippi,^  but  must  be 
understood  of  the  bishops  resident  in  that  city.  We  begin 
with  it  in  the  civil  sense,  which  is  the  foundation  of  the  other. 
It  is  confessed  not  to  have  been  a  metropolis  during  its  being 
called  Ke,rivihci  and  Aai'os,  "  the  city  of  fountain  nymphs  and 
datos,two  ancient  names  of  Philippi,"^  it  being  by  Patisanias 
called  v£o:>-ta  fi]  fijv  ev  MaxsSovia  Ttoxicov,  "the  most  reccut  cities 
in  Macedonia."  By  T'>^eo;;/^3//ttc^,  out  of  an  old  geography, 
(as  it  is  supposed,)  it  is  said  to  be  fiix^a  Ttoxtj  vno  fist^ojioxn^i 
®Baaa%ovt.xrii  tiXovaa,  "  a  little  towii  ranging  under  the  metropolis 
of  Thessalonica;"  and  it  is  not  very  improbable  that  so  small 
a  city,  as  it  is  acknowledged  to  be  by  Dio^  and  others,  should 
be  the  metropolis  of  Macedonia,  where  were  at  least  one 
hundred  and  fifty  cities,  as  Pliny  and  Pomponins  Mela  tell 
us;"*  by  both  of  whom  Philippi  is  placed  in  Thracia,  and  not 
in  Macedonia.  But  two  arguments  are  brought  to  prove 
Philippi  to  have  been  a  metropolis;  the  first  is  from  St.  Luke, 

'Phil.  i.  1.  2  Eliac.  11,  p.  182. 

3Dio,  1.  48.  •  4S.  4,  c.  11,1. 2,  c.  2. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  385 

calling  ii  fi^uf/jv  trji  jitf^tfioj  MaxsSovtaj  ^tojitv,  "the  first  town  of 
the  district  of  Macedonia,"  ^cis  xvi.  12;  but  rendered  by  the 
learned  doctor,  "the  prime  city  of  the  province  of  Macedonia;" 
but  it  would  be  worth  knowing  where  ^t^t?  in  all  the  NotitisR 
of  the  Roman  empire  was  translated  a  province;  and  it  is  evi- 
dent that  Luke  calls  it  the  first  city,  not  ratione  dignitatis, 
"in  regard  to  its  dignity,"  but  ratione  situs,  in  regard  to  its 
situation.  So  Camerarius  understands  Luke:  "  It  is  the  first 
colony  of  that  part  of  Macedonia,  when  one  goes  from 
Thracia  into  it."^  And  so  it  appears  by  Dio,^  describing 
the  situation  of  Philippi,  that  it  was  the  next  town  to  Neapo- 
lis,  only  the  mountain  Symbolon  coming  between  them,  and 
JNeapolis  being  upon  the  shore,  and  Philippi  built  up  in  the 
plain  near  the  mountain  Pangaeus,  where  Brutus  and  Cassius 
encamped  themselves:  its  being  then  the  first  city  of  entrance 
into  Macedonia  proves  no  more  that  it  was  the  metropolis 
of  Macedonia,  than  that  Calais  is  of  France  or  Dover  of 
England.  But  it  is  further  pleaded,  that  Philippi  was  a 
colony,  and  therefore  it  is  most  probable  that  the  seat  of  the 
Roman  judicature  was  there.  But  to  this  I  answer,  first, 
that  Philippi  was  not  the  only  colony  in  Macedonia;  for 
Pliny  reckons  up  Cassandria,  Paria,  and  others:^  for  which 
we  must  understand  that  Macedonia  was  long  since  made  a 
province  by  Paulus;  and  in  the  division  of  the  Roman  pro- 
vinces by  Augustus,  Strabo  reckons  it  with  Illyricuni  among 
the  provinces  belonging  to  the  Roman  people  and  senate,  and 
so  likewise  doth  Dio.  But  it  appears  by  Suetonius,*  that 
Tiberius,  (according  to  the  custom  of  the  Roman  emperors  in 
the  danger  of  war  in  the  provinces,)  took  it  into  his  own  hands, 
but  it  was  returned  by  Claudius  to  the  senate  again,  together 
with  Achaia:  thence  Dio  speaking  of  Macedonia  in  the  time 
of  Tiberius,  saith,  it  was  governed  axXrj^atu,  "  by  men  not  yet 
chosen  by  lot  or  election,"^  that  is,  by  those  who  were  a^xovttf 
M^stov;  "  by  governors  eligible  to  be  chosen,"  the  prae/ecti 
Csesaris,  "  such  as  were  sent  by  the  emperor  to  be  his  presi- 
dents" in  the  provinces;  the  a^;toj/T'£5  x-KTj^utoL  were  the  "  pro- 
consuls, chosen  by  lot,"  after  their  consulship  in  the  several 
provinces:  and  therefore  Dio  expresseth  Claudius's  return- 
ing Macedonia  into  the  senate's  hands  by  attsSuxcv  tots  ta 

>  Hanc  esse  primam  coloniaiti  parlis  seu  Plagae  Macedonicse;   nimirutn  ii 
ThraciaB  vicinia  iter  in  Macedoniani  ordiens. 

2  Lib.  47,  p.  397.  3  Paterc.  1.  2,  c.  37. 

*  Geogr.  1.  17,  hist.  1.  53.    V.  Claudii,  cap.  25. 
6  Hist.  1.  57. 
49 


386  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

x%rj^(o,  "he  put  it  to  the  lot  of  the  senate  again."  Now 
Macedonia  having  been  thus  long  a  province  of  the  Roman 
empire,  what  probability  is  there,  because  Philippi  was  a 
colony,  therefore  it  must  be  the  metropolis  of  Macedonia? 
Secondly,  We  find  not  the  least  evidence  either  in  scripture 
or  elsewhere,  that  the  proconsul  of  Macedonia  had  his  resi- 
dence at  Philippi;  yea,  we  have  some  evidence  against  it  out  of 

scripture.  Acts  XVi.  20,  22,   xat  rt^ojayoyoi'T'sj  av-eov^  T'ots  fpafj/yots, 

''and  brought  them  to  the  magistrates;"  if  there  had  been  the 
tribunal  of  a  proconsul  here,  we  should  certainly  have  had  it 
mentioned,  as  Gallio  proconsul  of  Achaia  is  in  a  like  case  at 
Corinth,  Acts  xviii.  12.  Two  sorts  of  magistrates  are  here 
expressed:^  the  a^xovtri';,  which  seem  to  be  the  "rulers"  of  the 
city,  the  ^paf^yov,  to  be  the  "  duumviri"  of  the  colony,  or  else 
the  deputies  of  the  proconsul  residing  there:  but  I  incline 
rather  to  the  former,  f^ari^yos  xoXwy6aj, ''  the  general  or  ruler  of 
the  colony,"  being  only  a  duumvir,  but  g^atriyoi  Va^irn,  is  a 
"  Praetor  at  Rome,"  as  Heinsius  observes  from  the  Glossary 
of  H.  Stephen.^  For  every  colony  had  a  duumvirate  to  rule 
it,  answering  to  the  consuls  and  praetors  at  Rome.  But  all 
this  might  have  been  spared,  when  we  consider  how  evident 
it  is  that  Thessalonica  was  the  Metropolis  of  Macedonia,  as 
appears  by  Jlntipater?  And  the  Prsefectus  prsetorio  Illyriciy 
"the  praefect  over  the  court  at  Illyriciim,"  had  his  residence 
at  Thessalonica;  as  Theodoret  tells  us,  "  Thessalonica  was  a 
great  populous  city,  where  the  lieutenant  of  Illyricum  did 
reside:"''  and  so  in  probability  did  the  Vicarius  Macedonise, 
"the  lieutenant  or  deputy  of  Macedonia."  It  is  called  the 
Metropolis  of  Macedonia  likewise  by  Socrates,  and  in  the 
ecclesiastical  sense  it  is  so  called  by  ^tius  the  bishop  thereof 
in  the  council  of  Sardica;  and  Carolus  a  Sancto  Pernio,^  thinks 
it  was  not  only  the  metropolis  of  the  Province  of  Macedonia, 
but  of  the  whole  diocess,^  (which  in  the  east  was  much  larger 
than  the  province.)  I  suppose  he  means  that  which  answered 
to  the  Vicarius  Macedonias.     And  thence  in  the  councils  of 

'  V.  Pancir.  de  Magist.  Municipal,  cap.  8. 

2  Exerc.  sacr.  1.  5,  c.  10. 

3  In  the  Greek  epigram, 

2oi  jtte  ©futxm;  o-xuXu^ojof  ©sas-o-aXoyiien 

MuTnf  h  Ttaa-tig  ws/i*%f-6  Maxslovixuf. — Antholog.  1.  1. 
"Thessalonica,  mother  of  all  Macedonia,  and  loaded  with  the  spoils  of  Tl)race, 
hath  sent  me  to  thee." 

*  ®tTe-a\oviKti  woXif  £f(  jueyifTi  xat  TToXuavSjai'zro;,  &C.  otra,  rxv  IXXujiobv  tsv    li7tap')(o!» 
Sywjujvov  t^ti. — Hist,  eccies.  1.  5,  c.  17.  V.  Better.  Pithan.  Dial.  cap.  2, 1.  2,  c.  12. 
6  Cone.  Sard.  cop.  16.  «  Grogr.  sacr.  1.  8,  s.  14. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  387 

Ephesus  and  Chalcedon,  the  subscription  of  the  bishop  of 
Thessalonica  was  next  to  the  patriarchs.  But  for  Phihppi 
the  same  author  acknowledgeth  it  not  to  have  been  a  metro- 
politan church  in  the  first  six  centuries;  but,  after  that  Mace- 
donia was  divided  into  prima  and  secunda,  (which  was  after 
the  division  of  it  in  the  empire  into  prima  and  salutaris,) 
then  Phihppi  came  to  have  the  honorary  title  of  a  metro- 
politan: although  in  Hierocles  his  Notitia,  Philippi  is  placed 
as  the  twenty-first  city  under  the  metropolis  of  Thessalonica. 
So  much  to  evidence  the  weakness  of  the  first  pillar,  viz.  that 
these  cities  were  metropolitan  in  the  civil  sense:  and  this  being 
taken  away,  the  other  falls  of  itself;  for  if  the  apostles  did 
model  the  ecclesiastical  government  according  to  the  civil, 
then  metropolitan  churches  were  planted  only  in  metropolitan 
cities;  and  these  being  proved  not  to  have  been  the  latter, 
it  is  evident  they  were  not  the  former.  But  however,  let  us 
see  what  evidence  is  brought  of  such  a  subordination  of  all 
other  churches  to  the  metropolitans,  by  the  institution  of  the 
apostles.  The  only  evidence  produced  out  of  scripture  for 
such  a  subordination  and  dependence  of  the  churches  of  less 
cities  upon  the  greater,  is  from  Jicts  xvi.  1,  4,  compared  with 
Jlcts  XV.  23;  the  argument  runs  thus:  the  question  was  started 
at  Antioch,  Acts  xiv.  26,  with  Acts  xv.  2,  from  thence  they  sent 
to  Jerusalem  for  a  resolution:  the  decree  of  the  council  there 
concerns  not  only  Antioch,  but  Syria  and  Cilicia,  which  were 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  Antioch:  and  therefore  metropolitan 
churches  are  jiire  divino,  "by  divine  law  or  right."  I  am 
afraid  the  argument  would  scarce  know  itself  in  the  dress  of  a 
syllogism.  Thus  it  runs:  If  upon  the  occasion  of  the  question 
at  Antioch,  the  decree  of  the  apostles  made  at  Jerusalem,  con- 
cern all  the  churches  of  Syria,  and  Cilicia,  then  all  these 
churches  had  a  dependence  upon  the  metropolis  of  Antioch, 
but  the  antecedent  is  true,  therefore  the  consequent.  Let  us 
see  how  the  argument  will  do  in  another  form.  If  upon  the 
occasion  of  the  question  at  Antioch,  the  decree  of  the  apostles 
concerned  all  the  churches  of  Christians  conversing  with  Jews; 
then  all  these  churches  had  dependence  upon  the  church  of 
Antioch;  but,  &c.  How  thankful  would  the  papists  have  been 
if  only  Rome  had  been  put  instead  of  Antioch!  and  then  the 
conclusion  had  been  true,  whatever  the  premises  were.  But 
in  good  earnest,  doth  the  churches  of  Syria  and  Cilicia  being 
bound  by  this  decree,  prove  their  subordination  to  Antioch,  or 
to  the  apostles?  Were  they  bound  because  Antioch  was  their 
metropolis,  or  because  they  were  the  apostles  who  resolved 


388  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

the  question?  but  were  not  the  churches  of  Phrygia,  and  Ga- 
latia,  bound  to  observe  these  decrees  as  well  as  others?  For 
of  these  it  is  said,  that  the  apostles  went  through  the  cities  of 
them,  delivering  the  decrees  to  keep,  as  it  is  expressed  Jlcts 
xvi.  4,  compared  with  the  6th  verse.  Or  do  the  decrees  of  the 
apostles  concern  only  those  to  whom  they  are  inscribed,  and 
upon  whose  occasion  they  are  penned?  Then  by  the  same 
reason  Pat^/'.?  epistles  being  written  many  of  them  upon  occa- 
sions, as  that  to  the  Corinthians  being  directed  to  the  metro- 
polis of  Corinth,  doth  only  concern  the  church  of  that  city,  and 
those  of  Achaia  that  were  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
city;  and  so  for  the  rest  of  the  epistles.  A  fair  way  to  make 
the  word  of  God  of  no  eifect  to  us;  because  forsooth,  we  live 
not  in  obedience  to  those  metropolitans  to  which  the  epistles 
were  directed!  From  whence  we  are  told,  how  many  things 
we  may  understand  by  this  notion  of  metropolitans:  especially 
why  Ignatius  superscribes  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  ixx^rj- 

ffttt  9;Vij  cffoxa^TjT'at  fv  •r'OTtw  ;t;co^toD  Pco;Wat«i',   "  tO    the    churcll    which 

presides  in  the  place  of  the  Roman  region,"  or  the  suhitrbica- 
rian  provinces.  But  let  us  see  whether  this  place  may  not  he 
understood  better  without  the  help  of  this  notion.  Casaubon^ 
calls  it  locutionem.  barbaram,  "a  barbarous  phrase;"  Vedelius 
is  more  favourable  to  it,  and  thinks  si  non  elegans  saltern  vitii 
libera  est^  "  if  not  elegant,  at  least  it  is  free  from  fault,"  and 
explains  it  by  the  suburbicarian  provinces,  and  makes  the 
sense  of  it  to  be  tv  -toHuj  65  £?'  x^c.^'Ov  -tav  Pco/tatwj/,  "  in  the  place 
of  the  Roman  regions,"  and  parallels  it  with  the  tonoi  Ttouu^ 
xaxtyvfiswi  BseaaiSia,  Luke  ix.  10.  Bellarmine  thinks  he  hath 
found  the  pope's  universal  power  in  his  tortoi,  "  place,"  but 
methinks  the  ;to^ioi'  Vc^fiaiuv  should  hardly  be  rendered,  orbis 
universus,  "the  whole  world,"  unless  Bellarmine  were  no 
more  skilled  in  Greek  than  Casaubon  thinks  he  was,  whom 
he  calls  in  the  place  before  cited,  hominem  Grxcarum  litera- 
rum prorsus  a^ivfitov,  "  a  man  altogether  uninitiated  in  Grecian 
learning."  The  most  ingenious  conjecture  concerning  this 
place,  is  that  of  our  learned  Mr.  Thorndike?  "  The  word 
•r'ortoj,  saith  he,  is  here  used  as  many  times  besides,  speaking 
of  those  places  which  a  man  would  neither  call  cities  nor 

towns,  as  Jicts  XXVii.  2,  [nVKwtt^'Ba.tiv  tovj  xa.'to,iy\v  Afftof  T'ortovf, 

'being  to  sail  by  the  places  of  Asia;'  ;i;w^a,  it  is  plain,  signifies 
the  country;  tono^  ;t;wgtov  Pw^ttaiwv,  then,  must  necessarily  signify 

'  Exercit.  16,  n.  150.  Exercit.  in  Ep.  Ignat.  ad  Rom.  c.  2. 
3  Laws  ot  the  Chur.  cap.  18,  p.  164. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  389 

here  the  Vatican,  lying  in  the  fields  as  a  suburb  to  Rome,  and 
being  the  place  where  St.  Peter  was  buried,  and  where  the 
Jews  of  Rome  then  dwelt,  as  we  learn  by  Philo,  legatione  ad 
Caiunij  "from  the  embassy  to  Caius,"  out  of  whom  he  pro- 
duceth  a  large  place  to  that  purpose,  and  so  makes  this  the 
church  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  the  Vatican  being  then  the 
Jewry  o/Rome;  but  there  being  no  clear  evidence  of  any  such 
distinction  of  churches  there,  and  as  little  reason  why  Ignatius 
should  write  to  the  church  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  and  not 
to  the  church  of  the  Gentile  Christians,  I  therefore  embrace 
his  sense  of  the  tonoi  xf-^^iov  Pw;itai«»' for  the  Vatican,  but  explain 
it  in  another  way,  viz,  as  we  have  already  shown,  that  the 
chief  places  of  meeting  for  the  Christians  in  Gentile  Rome, 
was  in  the  cemeteries  of  the  martyrs;  now  these  coemeteria, 
"  burying  places,"  were  all  of  them  without  the  city;  and  the 
coemeteria  where  Peter,  Linus,  Cletus,  and  some  other  of  the 
primitive  martyrs  lay  interred  in  the  Vatican  was  beyond  the 
river  Tiber.  So  Damasus  in  the  life  of  Cletus,  "  who  also  was 
buried  near  the  body  of  the  blessed  Peter  on  the  Vatican.'"  The 
church  then  in  the  place  of  the  region  of  the  Romans,  is  the  Chris- 
tian church  of  Rome,  assembling  chietiy  in  the  cemeteries  of  the 
Vatican,  or  in  any  other  of  those  vaults  which  were  in  the  fields 
at  a  good  distance  from  the  city.  But  yet  there  is  one  argu- 
ment more  for  metropolitans,  and  that  is  from  the  impor- 
tance of  the  word  rta^otxia,  "  a  dwelling  or  temporary  so- 
journ of  a  stranger;"  which  is  taken  to  signify  both  the  city 
and  country;  and  so  the  inscription  of  Clemen'' s  epistle  is  ex- 
plained, axxXi^aia  060V  ri  :io.e,oi%wi(So.  Pufii^v,  exxXt;aia®£OV  'tf;  via^oixovgij 

Ko^ivOov,  i.  e.  "  the  church  of  God  dwelling  about  Rome,  to 
the  church  dwelling  about  Corinth,"  whereby  is  supposed  to 
be  comprehended  the  whole  territories,  which  (being  metro- 
politans) takes  in  the  whole  province.  And  to  Poly  carp,  tfjix- 

x%*;sva  ■tov  0£ov  tfj  rta^oixovar;  ^lUftTtoi,;,    "  tO    the   church    of    God 

dwelling  at  Philippi."  But  all  this  ariseth  from  a  mistake  of 
the  signification  of  the  word  Tta^ocxsiv,  which  signifies  not  so 
much  accolere  3iS  incolere:  "to  dwell  near,  as  to  dwell  in;" 
and  therefore  the  old  Latin  version  renders  it,  ecclesias  Dei 
quae  est  Philippis,  "  to  the  church  of  God  which  is  in  (or  at) 
Philippi,"  iiopotxoj  is  Ttae,  a.vKr]i  7io%tui  axxriv  oixav,  "  oue  that  re- 
moves from  one  city  to  sojourn  in  another."  And  the  ground 
of  attributing  that  hame  to  the  Christian  churches,  was  either 
because  that  many  of  the  first  Christians  being  Jews,  they 

•  Qui  eliam  sepullus  est  juxla  corpus  B.  Petri  in  Vaticano. 


390  THE  DIVINK  RIGHT  OF 

did  truly  Ttapotxcw,  "sojourn,"  being  as  strangers  out  of 
their  own  country,  or  else  among  the  Christians,  because  by 
reason  of  their  continual  persecutions,  they  were  still  put  in 
mind  of  their  flitting  uncertain  condition  in  the  world,  their 
Ttoutevfia,  "country,  citizenship"  being  in  heaven. ^  Of  this 
the  apostles  often  tell  them:  from  hence  it  came  to  signify  the 
society  of  such  Christians  so  living  together;  which  as  it  in- 
creased, so  the  notion  of  the  word  na^ovxia  increased,  and  so 
went  from  the  city  into  the  country,  and  came  not  from  the 
country  into  the  city;  for,  if  niapotxEn/  should  be  taken  for  ac- 
colere,  then  it  necessarily  follows  that  Bxx%riaia  fta^oixovsa  P«^i;v 
cannot  signify  the  church  of  Rome,  and  the  territories  be- 
longing to  it,  but  the  church  adjacent  to  Rome,  distinct  from 
the  city,  and  the  church  in  it.  For  in  that  sense  cjapoixfn/  is 
opposed  to  living  in  the  city,  and  so  fcapotxot,  are  distinct  from 
the  citizens,  as  in  Thucydides  and  others;  but,  I  believe  no 
instance  can  possibly  be  produced  wherein  rtopotxia,  taken  in 
that  sense,  doth  comprehend  in  it  both  city  and  country.  But 
being  taken  in  the  former  sense,  it  was  first  applied  to  the 
whole  church  of  the  city;  but  when  the  church  of  the  city 
did  spread  itself  into  the  country,  then  the  word  rta^o^ta  com- 
prehended the  Christians,  both  in  city  and  country  adjoining 
to  it. 

§  4.  Which  leads  me  to  the  second  step  of  Christian 
churches,  when  churches  took  in  the  villages  and  territories 
adjoining  to  the  cities:  for  which  we  must  understand,  that 
the  ground  of  the  subordination  of  the  villages  and  territories 
about,  did  primarily  arise  from  hence,  that  the  gospel  was 
spread  abroad  from  the  several  cities  into  the  countries  about. 
The  apostles  themselves  preached  most,  as  we  read  in  scrip- 
ture, in  the  cities,  because  of  the  great  resort  of  people  thither; 
there  they  planted  churches,  and  settled  the  government  of 
them  in  an  ecclesiastical  senate,  which  not  only  took  care  for 
the  government  of  churches  already  constituted,  but  for  the 
gathering  more.  Now  the  persons  who  were  employed  in 
the  conversion  of  the  adjacent  territories,  being  of  the  clergy 
of  the  city,  the  persons  by  them  converted  were  adjoined  to 
the  church  of  the  city,  and  all  the  affairs  of  those  less 
churches  were  at  first  determined  by  the  governors  of  the 
city;  afterwards,  when  these  churches  increased,  and  had 
peculiar  officers  set  over  them  by  the  senate  of  the  city 
church,  although  these  did  rule  and  govern  their  flock,  yet  it 

'  Phil.  iii.  20. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  391 

always  was  with  a  subordination  to,  and  dependence  upon, 
the  government  of  the  city  church.  So  that  by  this  means, 
he  that  was  president  of  the  senate  in  the  city,  did  likewise 
superintend  all  the  churches  planted  in  the  adjoining  terri- 
tories, which  was  the  original  of  that  which  the  Greeks  call 
rtapotxia;  the  Latins,  the  diocess  of  the  bishop.  The  church 
where  the  bishop  was  peculiarly  resident  with  the  clergy, 
was  called  matrix  ecclesia,  "  the  mother  church,"^  and  ca- 
thedra principalis,  "  the  principal  seat,"  as  the  several  pa- 
rishes which  at  first  were  divided  according  to  the  several  re- 
gions of  the  city,  were  called  iituli,  "hence  the  word  title,  a  title 
to  a  curacy,  or  beneficed  living  to  be  presented  to  the  bishop 
prior  to  ordination,"  and  those  planted  in  the  territories  about 
the  city,  called  joarcec2«,  "in  modern  language,  parishes," 
when  they  were  applied  to  the  presbyters;  but  when  to  the 
bishop,  it  noted  a  diocess:  those  that  were  planted  in  these 
country  parishes,  were  called  ts^sff/Surt^ot  tm.x(^^ioi,  ot  sv  ;t"C'*'J' 
"native  presbyters,  who  are  in  the  country,"  by  the  Greeks;  and 
by  the  \u?i{ms,presbyteri  regionarii,  conregionales,  forastici, 
ruris  ugrorurn presbyteri,  "country  presbyters,  fellow-coun- 
trymen, borderers,  presbyters  of  the  district  of  the  country," 
from  whom  the  ;^wpfrtt5xortoi,^  were  distinct,  as  evidently  appears 
by  the  thirteenth  canon  of  the  cowncW  oi  Neocxsarea;  "where 
the  country  presbyters  are  forbidden  to  administer  the  Lord's 
supper  in  the  presence  of  the  bishop  or  the  presbyters  of  the 
city;  but  the  chorepiscopi  were  allowed  to  do  it."  Salmasius 
thinks  these  ;:^wp£rtKjxortoc  were  so  called  as  t'wv  x^i^v  cTtvaxoTtoi,  the 
episcopi  villani,^  such  as  were  only  presbyters,  and  were  set 
over  the  churches  in  villages:  but  though  they  were  originally 
presbyters,-*  yet  they  were  raised  to  some  higher  authority 
over  the  rest  of  the  presbyters,  and  the  original  of  them  seems 
to  be,  that  when  churches  were  so  much  multiplied  in  the 
countries  adjacent  to  the  cities,  that  the  bishop  in  his  own  per- 

>  Cod.  Eccles.  Afric.  c.  33.  can.  71. 

2  Xaj^iTrta-Koffoi,  literally  country  or  rural  bishops;  as  the  church  of  England  has 
its  rural  deans,  A  suffragan,  or  bishop  under  his  metropolitan  or  primate,  is  the 
only  English  word  having  even  a  remote  analogy  to  the  ancient  chorepiscopus: 
but  it  is  not  to  be  expected,  after  this  change  of  country,  time,  and  circumstances, 
that  the  functions  of  either  were  parallel  with  those  of  the  other. — Am.  Ed. 

2  The  Latin  term  villanus  originally  signified  one  who  resorted  to  land  remote 
from  the  residence  of  its  proprietor,  enjoyed  its  produce,  and  ultimately  claimed 
possession.  Hence  the  English  word  villain,  a  rogue.  To  this  the  American 
term  a  squatter,  has  an  evident  analogy.  But  whether  the  "episcopus  villanus" 
was  a  bishop  over  squatters,  or  had  squatted  himself,  is  a  dilemma  that  Stilling- 
fleet  apparently  had  no  intention  to  solve. — Am.  Ed. 

*  Apparatus,  pr.  240,  de  primat.  c.  10,  p.  1,  c.  11,  p.  164. 


392  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

son  could  not  be  preserjt  to  oversee  the  actions  and  carriages 
of  tlie  several  presbyters  of  the  country  churches,  then  they 
ordained  some  of  the  fittest  in  their  several  diocesses  to  super- 
intend the  several  presbyters  lying  remote  from  the  city;  from 
which  office  of  theirs  they  were  called  rts^vobsviM,  "  itinerants," 
because  they  did  rt£/jto5£i;£tV,"go  about  and  visit"  the  several 
churches.  This  is  the  account  given  of  them  by  Bezu}  and 
Blondell^  as  well  as  others.  AH  those  several  places  that 
were  converted  to  the  faith  by  the  assistance  of  the  presbyters 
of  the  city,  did  all  make  but  one  church  with  the  city.  Whereof 
we  have  this  twofold  evidence:  First,  from  the  eulogise  which 
were,  at  first,  portions  of  the  bread  consecrated  for  the  Lord's 
supper,  which  were  sent  by  the  deacons  or  acoluthi,  "under 
deacons,"  to  those  that  were  absent,  in  token  of  their  com- 
munion in  the  same  church.  Justin  Martyr  is  the  first  who 
acquaints  us  with  this  custom  of  the  church:  "After,"  saith 
lie,  "  the  president  of  the  assembly  hath  consecrated  the  bread 
and  wine,  the  deacons  stand  ready  to  distribute  it  to  every 
one  person,  xm  toi^  ov  Tta^ovsov  aTtofspovai,,  "  and  carry  it  to  those 
that  are  absent."^  Damasus  attributes  the  beginning  of  this 
custom  to  Miltiades,  bishop  of  Rome:  "  He  caused  that  the 
dedicated  offerings  should  be  directed  through  the  churches 
from  the  consecration  of  the  bishop:  which  (act)  is  declared  ,to 
be  the  leaven,  (of  charity.)  So  Innocentius  to  Decentius, 
speaking  of  the  leaven,"  (or  leavened  bread,  the  symbol  of 
that  charity,  says,)  which  we  send  on  the  Lord's  day,  through 
the  parishes,  that  they  should  not  judge  that  they  are  sepa- 
rated from  our  communion."'*  Whereby  it  appears  to  have 
been  the  custom  of  Rome  and  other  places  to  send  from  the 
cathedral  church,  the  bread  consecrated  to  the  several  parish 
churches  to  note  their  joint  communion  in  the  faith  of  the 
gospel.  Neither  was  it  sent  only  to  the  several  tituli  in  the 
city,  but  to  the  villages  round  about,  as  appears  by  the  ques- 
tion propounded  by  Decentius;  although  at  Rome  it  seems 
they  sent  it  only  to  the  churches  within  the  city,  as  appears 
by  the  answer  of  Innocentius:^  but  Jilhaspinus  takes  it  for 
granted,  as  a  general  custom  upon  some  set  days  to  send  these 


'  Beza  de  Minis,  grad.  c.  24.  2  Blondell,  Ap.  p.  94. 

3  Apol.  2,  p.  97. 

4  Hie  fecit  ut  oblationes  consecratas  per  ecclesias  ex  consecratione  episcopi 
dirigerentur:  quod  declaratur  fermcntum.  So  Innocentius  ad  Decentium;  de 
fermcnto,  vero  quod  die  Dominica  per  titulos  mittimus,  etc.  ut  se  &  nostra  com- 
munione  maxima  ilia  die  non  judicent  separatos. — Cap.  5. 

6  Observat.  1.  1,  c.  8. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  S93 

eulogise,  through  the  whole  diocess.  "For  when  scattered 
and  extended  over  the  villages  and  country,  they  cannot  par- 
ticipate of  the  same  communion,  and  always  desire  to  pre- 
serve, as  far  as  possible,  a  form  of  Christian  unity,  and  of 
partaking  of  the  body  of  Christ,  the  consecrated  bread,  on  holy 
days  and  festivals,  is  sent  through  the  parishes;  by  appreciating 
which,  the  fellowship,  which  ought  to  intervene  amongst  all 
the  faithful  of  the  same  diocess,  is  felt  and  represented."^ 
Surely  then  the  diocesses  were  not  very  large,  if  all  the  several 
parishes  could  communicate  on  the  same  day  with  what  was 
sent  frdm  the  cathedral  church.  Afterwards  they  sent  not 
part  of  the  bread  of  the  Lord's  supper,  but  some  other  in 
analogy  to  that,  to  denote  their  mutual  contesseration^  in  the 
faith  and  communion  in  the  same  church.^  Secondly,  it  ap- 
pears that  still  they  were  of  the  same  church,  by  the  presence 
of  the  clergy  of  the  country,  or  the  choice  of  the  bishop  of  the 
city,  and  at  ordinations  and  in  councils.^  So  at  the  choice 
o{  Boniface:  "All  the  presbyters,  their  own  cures  being  left, 
shall  be  present,  who  may  freely  declare  their  own  opinion, 
what  is  the  judgment  of  God."^  Whereby  it  is  evident  that 
all  the  clergy  had  their  voices  in  the  choice  of  the  bishop. 
And  therefore  pope  Leo  requires  these  things  as  necessary  to 
the  ordination  of  a  bishop:  "The  subscription  of  the  clergy, 
the  testimony  of  the  honourable,  and  the  consent  of  those  of 
rank  and  of  the  people."*'  And  in  the  same  chapter,  speaking 
of  the  choice  of  the  bishop,  he  saith  it  was  done  subscriben- 
tibiis  plus  minus  septiiaginta  presbyteris,  "  the  presbyters 
subscribing,  being  over  or  under  seventy."  And  therefore  it 
is  observed  that  all  the  clergy  concurred  to  the  choice  even  of 
the  bishop  of  Rome,  till  after  the  time  of  that  Hildebrand, 
called  Gregory  VII.,  in  whose  time  popery  came  to  age;'' 

'  Nam  cum  per  vicos  et  agros  sparsi  et  diffusi,  ex  eadem  non  possint  sumere 
commuiiione,  cuperentque  semper  unionis  Christianoe,  et  Christi  corporis  speciem 
qiiain  possint  maximam  retinere,  solennissimis  diebus  et  festivis  ex  matrice  per 
parochias,  benedictus  mittebatur  panis,  ex  cujus  perceptione  communitas  qusa 
inter  omries  fideles  ejusdem  dioecesis  intercadere  debet,  intelligebatur  et  reprae- 
sentabatur. 

2  V.  Casaub.  Exercit.  16,  s.  33.     Salmas.  App.  p.  243. 

3  Contesseraiion,  mutual  interchange  of  pledge  or  ticket.  There  is  no  English 
word  now  to  signify  this.  So  much  have  we  gained  by  pruning  to  please  ears 
that  never  heard  music. 

••  Ep.  ad  Honor,  k  Presbit.  Rom. 

6  Relictis  singuli  titulis  suis  presbyteri  omnes  aderunt  qui  voluntatem  suam, 
quod  sit  Dei  judicium,  proloquantur. 

6  Subscriptio  clericorum,  honoratorum  testimonium,  ordinis  consensus  et  plebis. 
— Ep.  90. 

7  Cypr.  ep.  52. 

50 


394  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

thence  Casaubo?i caWs  it  hseresin  Hildebrandinain,  "the  heresy 
of  Hildebrand."  Cornelius,  bisliop  of  Rome,  was  chosen 
clericorum  pene  omnium  testim,onio,  "by  the  testimony  of 
nearly  all  the  clergy;"  and  in  the  council  at  Rome  under  Syl- 
vester it  is  decreed,  that  none  of  the  clergy  should  be  ordain- 
ed, nisi  cum  tola  adunata  ecclesia,  "except  with  the  whole 
church  united."  Many  instances  are  brought  from  the  coun- 
cils of  Carthage^  to  the  same  purpose,  whicli  I  pass  over  as 
commonly  known.  It  was  accounted  the  matter  of  an  accusa- 
tion against  Chrysostom^  by  his  enemies,  6rt  aviv  awthtiov  xai 

Tla^a,  yvufi'Tjv  -tov  x%ri^ov  ftom  ■taf  ;tf'C°''''"'"*5'   "  that    he    ordaiucd 

without  the  council  and  against  the  will  of  the  clergy."  The 
presence  of  the  clergy  at  councils  hath  been  already  shown. 
Thus  we  see  how,  when  the  church  of  the  city  was  enlarged 
into  the  country,  the  power  of  the  governors  of  the  churclies 
in  the  city  was  extended  with  it. 

§  5.  The  next  step  observable  in  the  churches'  increase, 
was,  when  several  of  these  churches  lying  together  in  one 
province  did  associate  one  with  another.  The  primitive  church 
had  a  great  eye  to  the  preserving  unity  among  all  the  mem- 
bers of  it,  and  thence  they  kept  so  strict  a  correspondency 
among  the  several  bishops  in  the  Commercium  Formaturimiy 
"the  intercourse  of  the  formulae  or  forms  of  writing,"  (which, 
to  prevent  deceit,  may  be  seen  in  Justellus'' s  Notes  on  the 
Codex  Canonum  Ecclesisr,  Jifricanse^y  "  the  code  of  the  Ca- 
nons of  the  African  church;"  and  for  maintaining  of  nearer 
correspondency  among  the  bishops  of  a  province,  it  was 
agreed  among  themselves  for  the  better  carrying  on  of  their 
common  work,  to  call  a  provincial  synod  twice  every  year  to 
debate  all  causes  there  among  themselves,  and  to  agree  upon 
such  ways  as  might  most  conduce  to  the  advancing  the  com- 
mon interest  of  Christianity.  Of  these  TertuUian  speaks: 
"Orders  are  issued  through  those  Graecian  countries,  and  in 
certain  places  councils  from  the  whole  church  are  held,  by 
which  and  others  of  higher  rank,  whatever  is  of  common  in- 
terest is  discussed;  and  this,  as  a  proof  of  the  existence  of 
Christianity,  is  celebrated  with  great  veneration."'*  Of  these 
the  thirty-eighth  canon  apostolical  (as  it  is  called)  expressly 
speaks,  (which  canons,  though  not  of  authority  sufficient  to 

'  Con.  3,  c.  4  <fc  5  Con.  2,  c.  10,  11.  2  PJ,otius,  cod.  59,  n.  1.5. 

3  Pag.  127. 

■•  Aguntur  praecepta  per  Grsecias  illas  cerlis  in  locis  concilia  ex  universis  ec- 
clesiis,  per  quae  et  altiora  quaeq;  in  communi  tractantur,  et  ipsa  repraesentalio 
nominis  Christian!  magna  veneratione  ceiebratur. — De  jejunio  advcrs.  Psych. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

ground  any  right  upon,  may  yet  be  allowed  the  place  of  a 
testimony  of  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church,  especially 
towards  the  third  century,)  "Twice  every  year,  let  there  he  a 
synod  of  bishops,  and  let  them  decide  on  the  tenets  of  religion, 
and  settle  the  controversies  that  occur  in  the  church."*  To 
the  same  purpose  the  council  of  Antioch,  A.  D.  343:  "On  ac- 
count of  the  necessities  of  the  church,  and  the  reconciliation 
of  wranglers,  it  appears  that  you  much  need  that  synods  of 
bishops  sliould  take  place,  in  every  province,  twice  every 
year. "2  To  these  councils,  the  presbyters  and  deacons  came, 
as  appears  by  that  canon  of  the  council  of  Antioch;  and  in 
the  seventh  canon  of  the  Nicene  council  by  Alphonsus  Pi- 
sanus,  the  same  custom  is  decreed,  but  no  such  thing  occurs  in 
the  Codex  Canonum,  "  the  code  of  canons,"  either  of  Tilius 
or  Justellus^s  edition,  and  the  Arabic  edition  of  that  council 
is  conceived  to  have  been  compiled  above  four  hundred  years 
after  the  council  sat.  But,  however,  we  see  evidence  enough 
of  this  practice  of  celebrating  provincial  synods  twice  a  year. 
Now  in  the  assembling  of  these  bishops  together  for  mutual 
counsel  in  their  affairs,  there  was  a  necessity  of  some  order 
to  be  observed.  There  was  no  difference  as  to  the  power 
of  the  bishops  themselves,  who  had  all  equal  authority  in 
their  several  churches,  and  none  over  another.  For,  "the 
episcopacy  is  one"  (body)  "by  each,"  (member,)  "of  which 
the  order  is  still  held  entire,"  as  Cyprian  speaks;  and  as  Je- 
rome, "  whether  at  Rome,  at  Gubio,  at  Constantinople,  at 
Reggio,  or  at  Tanis,  his  merit  and  order  of  priesthood  are  the 
same.  The  power  of  riches,  and  the  degradation  of  poverty, 
constitute  him  not  a  bishop  of  either  a  more  elevated  or  de- 
pressed rank;  for  all  are  the  successors  of  the  apostles."' 
There  being  then  no  difference  between  them,  no  man  call- 
ing himself  episcopum  episcoporum,  as  Cyprian  elsewhere 
speaks,  some  other  waiy  must  be  found  out  to  preserve  order 


*  dkixytifm  Tov  erovi  a-uvo^ot  yivsj&iw  tmv  eTtta-KOTtw,  xai  avaKptvtnaray  aXXnXouj  ret 
ioyfAaTo,  TdC  evasCeiai  Hat  rai;  t/xirtTTrova-at  tKxXDcrtafit*?  avrt7\.oyia(  ha.\vtrai(Tav, — 
Can.  Apost.  cap.  38. 

2  Aia  ra(  exxXwiriaf ixaf  ^jejaj ,  xat  rag  rmi  a.fx<^i<T8r\'rovfA,fiaiv  JiaXwa-sif,  JtaXotf?  e^6«v 
eJo^s  (TUVoJouf  xafl  £Ka;*DV  STTd^xtav  Tftif  smg-KOTTxv  yivE&ai  JguTtjov  Tou  iroui;. — Can.  20, 
in  Cod.  Can.  99. 

3  Episcopatus  unus  est,  cujus  i  singulis  in  solidum  pars  tenetur,  (as  Cypriaa 
speaks;  and  as  Jerome,)  Ubicunq,  episcopus  fuerit,  sive  Romee,  sive  Eugubii,  sive 
Constantinopoli,  sive  Rhegit,  sive  Alexandriee,  sive  Tanis,  ejusdem  est  nieriti, 
ejusdein  est  et  sacerdotii.  Potcntia  divitiarum  et  paupertatis  humiiitas,  vel  sub- 
limiorem  vel  inferiorem  episcopum  non  facit:  cseterum  omnes  apostolorum  suc- 
cessores  sunt. — De  veritate  cccles. — Ep.  ad  Evagrum. 


396  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

among  them,  and  to  moderate  the  affairs  of  the  councils;  and 
therefore  it  was  determined  in  the  council  of  Antioch,  that  he 
that  was  the  bishop  of  the  metropolis,  should  have  the  honour 
of  metropolitan  among  the  bishops:  "  because  from  every 
quarter,  all  having  affairs  resort  to  the  metropolis,  it  seems 
proper  that  in  honour  he  should  have  the  pre-eminence."' 
We  see  how  far  they  are  from  attributing  any  divine  right  to 
metropolitans;  and  therefore  the  rights  of  metropolitans  are 
called  by  the  sixth  canon  of  the  Nicene  council,  ta  ag;t»^»  ^^v* 
"  the  ancient  customs,"  which  had  been  a  dishonourable  in- 
troduction for  the  metropolitan  rights,  had  they  thought  them 
grounded  upon  apostolical  institution.  Nothing  is  more  evi- 
dent in  antiquity  than  the  honour  of  metropolitans  depending 
upon  their  ^ee^;  thence  when  any  cities  were  raised  by  the 
emperor  to  the  honour  of  metropolitans,  their  bishop  became 
a  metropolitan,  as  is  most  evident  in  Jiistiniana  prima,  and 
for  it  there  are  canons  in  the  councils  decreeing  it;  but  of  this 
more  afterwards.  The  chief  bishop  of  Africa  was  only  called 
primsR  sedis  episcopus,  "  the  bishop  of  the  first  see:"  thence 
we  have  a  canon  in  the  Codex  Ecclesix  Jifricanse,  "in  the 
code  of  the  African  church:"  "That  the  bishop  of  the  chief 
see  should  not  be  called  the  exarch  of  the  priests,  or  chief 
priest,  or  anything  of  like  nature,  but  only  the  bishop  of  the 
chief  seat."^  Therefore  it  hath  been  well  observed  that  the 
African  churches  did  retain  longest  the  primitive  simplicity 
and  humility  among  them.  But  when  the  voice  was  heard, 
on  the  flowing  in  of  riches,  Hodie  venerium  effusum,  est  in 
ecclesiam,  "this  day  poison  has  been  poured  forth  in  the 
church,"  the  spirits  of  the  prelates  by  that  poison  began  to 
sv/ell  with  pride  and  ambition,  (as  is  too  evident  in  church 
history,)  only  Africa  escaped  the  infection  most,  and  resisted 
the  tyrannical  encroachments  of  the  Roman  bishop,  with  the 
greatest  magnanimity  and  courage,  as  may  be  seen  by  the 
excellent  epistle  of  the  council  of  Carthage,  to  Boniface, 
bishop  of  Rome,  in  the  Codex  Ecclesige  Africanse.^  So  that 
however  Africa  hath  been  always  fruitful  of  monsters,  yet  in 
that  ambitious  age  it  had  no  other  wonder  but  only  this,  that 
It  escaped  so  free  from  that  typhus  ssecularis,  "  that  stupor 
of  the  age,"  (as  they  then  called  it,)  the  monstrous  itch  of 

'  Ata  TO  Ev  TD  [AntfoTtoXii  wavTctp^o&SV  ffwr^B^Biv  TTttVTaf  Touf  ra  'or^a.yfxara  sxcvrcti, 
SSev  eJo^e  yai  Tti  Tifxri  TT^onyeia-^at  avrov. — Can.  17. 

TOiouTOTf  cTTov  Ti  TTori,  ttXXa  uovov  i'rn<TX,o'r:n  thj  iipaiTrit  xa&EJpaf. — Can.  39. 
3  Pag.  341. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  397 

pride  and  ambition.  From  whence  we  may  well  rise  to  the 
last  step  of  the  power  of  the  church,  which  was  after  the 
empire  grew  Christian,  and  many  provinces  did  associate  to- 
getlier,  then  the  honour  and  power  of  the  patriarchs  came 
upon  the  stage.  And  now  began  the  whole  Christian  world 
to  be  the  cockpit,  wherein  the  two  great  prelates  of  Rome 
and  Constantinople  strive  with  their  greatest  force  for  mastery 
of  one  another,  and  the  whole  world  with  them,  as  may  be 
seen  in  the  actions  of  Paschasiniis,  the  Roman  legate  in  the 
council  of  Chalcedon.  From  whence  forward  the  great  l^evi- 
athan  by  his  tumbling  in  the  waves,  endeavoured  to  get  the 
dominion  of  all  into  his  hands;  but  God  hath  at  last  put  a 
hook  into  his  nostrils,  and  raised  up  the  great  instruments  of 
reformation,  who,  hke  the  swordfish,  have  so  pierced  into 
his  bowels,  that  by  his  tumbling  he  may  only  hasten  his  ap- 
proaching ruin,  and  give  the  church  every  day  more  hopes  of 
seeing  itself  freed  from  the  tyranny  of  an  usurped  power. 
By  this  scheme  and  draught  now  of  the  increase  of  the 
church's  power,  nothing  can  be  more  evident  than  that  it 
rises  not  from  any  divine  institution,  but  only  from  positive 
and  ecclesiastical  laws,  made  according  to  the  several  states 
and  conditions  wherein  the  church  was;  which,  as  it  gradually 
grew  up,  so  was  the  power  of  the  church  by  mutual  consent 
fitted  to  the  stateof  the  church  in  its  several  ages — which  was 
the  first  argument,  that  the  primitive  church  did  not  conceive 
itself  bound  to  observe  any  one  unalterable  form  of  govern- 
ment. This  being  the  chief,  the  rest  that  follows  will  sooner 
be  despatched. 

§  6.  The  second  is  from  the  great  varieties  as  to  govern- 
ment which  were  in  several  churches.  What  comes  from 
divine  right,  is  observed  unalterably  in  one  uniform  and  con- 
stant tenor:  but  what  we  find  so  much  diversified  according 
to  several  places,  we  may  have  ground  to  look  on  only  as  an 
ecclesiastical  constitution,  which  was  followed  by  every  church 
as  it  judged  convenient.  Now  as  to  church  government  we 
may  find  some  churches  without  bishops  for  a  long  time,  some 
but  with  one  bishop  in  a  whole  nation,  many  cities  without 
any,  where  bishops  were  common;  many  churches  discon- 
tinue bishops  for  a  great  while  where  they  had  been;  no  cer- 
tain rule  observed  for  modelling  their  diocesses  where  they 
were  still  continued.  Will  not  all  these  things  make  it  seem 
very  improbable  that  it  should  be  an  apostolical  institution, 
that  no  church  should  be  without  a  bishop?  First,  then  some 
whole  nations  seem  to  have  been  without  any  bishops  at  all, 


3&8  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

> 

if  we  may  believe  their  own  historians.  So  if  we  may  believe 
the  great  antiquaries  of  the  church  of  Scotland,  that  church 
was  governed  by  their  Ctildei  as  they  called  their  presbyters, 
without  any  bishop  over  them,  for  a  long  time.  Johannes 
Major  speaks  of  their  instruction  in  the  faith,  per  sacerdotes 
et  monachos  sine  episcopis  Scoti  in  fide  ernditi,  "  the  Scots 
were  instructed  in  the  faith,  without  bishops,  by  the  priests  and 
monks,'"  but  lest  that  should  be  interpreted  only  of  their  con- 
version, Johannes  Fordonus  is  clear  and  full  to  their  govern- 
ment, from  the  time  of  their  conversion  about  a.  d.  263,  to  the 
coming  of  Palladius  a.  d.  430,  that  they  were  only  governed 
by  presbyters  and  monks.  "Before  the  coming  of  Palladius, 
the  Scots  had  doctors  of  the  faith  and  ministers  of  the  sacra- 
ments, but  presbyters  and  monks  only,  following  the  order  of 
the  primitive  church.  "^  So  much  mistaken  was  that  learned 
man,  who  saith,  that  neither  Beda  nor  any  other  affirms  that 
the  Scots  were  formerly  ruled  by  a  presbytery,  or  so  much  as 
that  they  had  any  presbyter  among  them.^  Neither  is  it  any 
ways  sufficient  to  say,  that  those  presbyters  did  derive  their 
authority  from  some  bishops:  for  however  we  see  here  a 
church  governed  without  such,  or  if  they  had  any,  they  were 
only  chosen  from  their  Culdei^  much  after  the  custom  of  the 
church  of  Alexandria,  as  Hector  Boethius  doth  imply.  And 
if  we  believe  PhilostorgiiisMhe  Gothic  churches  were  planted 
and  governed  by  presbyters  for  above  seventy  years:  for  so 
long  it  was  from  their  first  conversion  to  the  time  of  Ulphilas, 
whom  he  makes  their  first  bishop.  And  great  probability 
there  is,  that  where  churches  were  planted  by  presbyters,  as 
the  church  of  France  by  ^?idochius  and  BenignuSy  that  after- 
wards upon  the  increase  of  churches,  and  presbyters  to  rule 
them,  they  did  from  among  themselves  choose  one  to  be  as 
the  bishop  over  them,  as  Pothiniis  was  at  Lyons.  For  we 
nowhere  read  in  those  early  plantations  of  churches,  that 
where  there  were  presbyters  already,  they  sent  to  other 
churches  to  derive  episcopal  ordination  from  them.  Now  for 
whole  nations  having  but  one  bishop,  we  have  the  testimony 
of  Sozome.n,  that  in  Scythia,  which  by  the  Romans  was  called 

Masia    inferior^    hoVko.i   HoXh^   ovtsi,    jVa   ttavtsi    fTtiaxortov  sxn^f 

'  Dc  gestis  Scot.  lib.  2,  cap.  2. 

2  Ante  Palladii  adventum  habebant  Scoti  fidei  doctorcs  ac  sacramentoruin 
iiiinistratores  presbyteros  solummodo,  vel  monachos  ritum  sequentes  ecclesite 
primitivae. — Scot,  cliron.  1.  3,  cap.  1. 

3  V.  Blondcl.  Apol.  s.  3,  p.  314. 

*  Scot.  hist.  lib.  6,  Eclnij.  1.  2,  ciip.  5,  5  Hist.  Eccl.  1.  7,  cap.  19. 


FORMS  OF  OUURCH  GOVERNMENT.  39  9 

"Although  there  were  many  cities  they  had  but  one  bishop." 
The  hke  Godignus  relates  of  the  Abyssinian  cliurches,i  though 
their  territories  be  of  vast  extent,  there  is  but  only  one  bishop 
in  all  those  dominions,  who  is  the  bishop  of  Abuna.  And 
where  bishops  were  most  common,  it  is  evident  they  looked 
not  on  it  as  an  apostolical  rule  for  every  city  to  have  a  bishop, 
which  it  must  have  if  it  was  an  apostolical  institution  for  the 
church  to  follow  the  civil  government.^  Theodoret  mentions 
eight  hundred  churches  under  his  charge,  in  whose  diocess 
Ptolemy  placeth  many  other  cities  of  note  besides  Cirus,  as 
Ariseria,  Regia,  Ruba,  Heraclea,^  &c.  In  the  province  of 
Tripoli  he  reckons  nine  cities  which  had  but  five  bishops, 
as  appears  by  the  Notitia  ecclesise  Jifricands^  <•  the  reminis- 
cences of  the  African  church."  In  Thracia  every  bishop  had 
several  cities  under  him.  The  bishop  of  Heraclea  that  and 
Panion;  the  bishop  of  Byze  had  it  and  Arcadiapolis;  of  Coela 
had  it  and  Calhpolis;  Sabsadia  had  it  and  Aphrodisias.'*  It  is 
needless  to  produce  more  instances  of  this  nature  either  ancient 
or  modern,  they  being  so  common  and  obvious.  But  further, 
we  find  bishops  discontinued  for  a  long  time  in  the  greatest 
churches.  For  if  there  be  no  church  without  a  bishop,  where 
was  the  church  of  Rome  when  from  the  martyrdom  of  Fa- 
bian,  and  the  banishment  of  Lucius  the  church  was  governed 
only  by  the  clergy?^'  So  the  church  of  Carthage  when  Cyprian 
was  banished;  the  church  of  the  east,  when  Mektius  of  An- 
tioch,  Eusebius  Saniosatenus,  Pelagius  of  Laodicea,  and  the 
rest  of  the  orthodox  bishops  were  banished  for  ten  years 
space,  and  Flavianus  and  Diodorus,  two  presbyters  ruled 
the  church  of  Antioch  the  mean  while. "^  The  church  of  Car- 
thage was  twenty-four  years  without  a  bishop  in  the  time  of 
Hunerik,  king  of  the  Vandals;^  and  when  it  was  offered  them 
that  they  might  have  a  bishop  upon  admitting  the  Arians  to 
a  free  exercise  of  their  religion  among  them,  their  answer  was 
upon  those  terms,  ecclesia  episcopum  non  delectatur  habere; 
<■'  it  was  not  the  pleasure  of  the  church  to  have  a  bishop;" 
and  Balsamon^  speaking  of  the  Christian  churches  in  the 
east,  determines  it  neither  safe  nor  necessary  in  their  present 
state  to  have  bishops  set  over  them.  And  lastly  for  their 
diocesses,  it  is  evident  there  was  no  certain  rule  for  modelling 

»  De  rebus  Abassin.  1.  1,  c.  321.  2  Ep.  113. 

3  Geog^.  1.  5,  cap.  15.  *  Ephes.  synod.  1,  ad.  sin.  Act  7. 

5  Cyprian,  ep.  3, 26,  30,  31.  6  Theodoret,  1.  4,  c.  21. 

7  Victor,  1. 2,  de  pars.  Vend.  s  !„  Can.  57,  Laod. 


400  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

them.  Ill  some  places  they  were  far  less  than  in  others.' 
Generally  in  the  primitive  and  eastern  churches  they  were 
very  small  and  little,  as  far  more  convenient  for  the  end  of 
them  in  the  government  of  the  churches  under  the  bishop's 
charge:  it  being  observed  out  of  Walafridiis  Slrabo,  by  a 
learned  man,  "  It  is  reported,  that  in  certain  parts  of  the  east, 
the  government  of  bishops,  is  over  single  cities,  and  single 
districts."^  In  Africa,  if  we  look  but  into  the  writings  of 
Augustine,  we  may  find  hundreds  of  bishops  resorting  to  one 
council.  In  Ireland  alone,  St.  Patrick  is  said  by  Ninius  at 
thti  first  plantation  of  Christianity  to  have  founded  three  hun- 
dred and  sixty-five  bishopricks.  So  Sozomen^  tells  us  that 
among  the  Arabians,  and  Cyprians,  Novatians  Montanists, 
iv  xwjuatj  fftvaxortou  ti^ovvtah  "  iu  the  villages  the  bishops  offi- 
ciate." 

§  7.  The  next  evidence  that  the  church  did  not  look  upon 
itself  as  by  a  divine  law  to  observe  any  one  model  of  govern- 
ment, is,  the  conforming  the  ecclesiastical  government  to  the 
civil.  For,  if  the  obligation  arose  from  a  law  of  God,  that 
must  not  be  altered  according  to  civil  constitutions,  which  are 
variable  according  to  the  different  state  and  conditions  of 
things.  If  then  the  apostles  did  settle  things  by  a  standing 
law  in  their  own  times,  how  comes  the  model  of  church  go- 
vernment to  alter  with  the  civil  form?  Now  that  the  church 
did  generally  follow  the  civil  government,  is  freely  acknow- 
ledged and  insisted  on  by  learned  persons  of  all  sides;  espe- 
cially after  the  division  of  the  Roman  empire  by  Constantine 
the  Great.  The  full  making  out  of  which  is  a  work  too  large 
to  be  here  undertaken,  and  hath  been  done  to  very  good  pur- 
pose already,  by  Berterius,  Sa/masius,  Gothofred,  Blondell* 
and  others,  in  their  learned  discourses  of  the  suburbicarian 
provinces.  Which  whether  by  them  or  not  we  understand 
that  which  did  correspond  to  the  prsefecture  of  \he  provost  of 
Rome,  which  was  within  a  hundred  miles  compass  of  the  city 
of  Rome,  or  that  which  answered  to  the  vicarius  urbis,  whose 
jurisdiction  was  over  the  ten  provinces  distinct  from  Italy, 
properly  so  called,  whose  metropolis  was  Milan;  or,  which  is 


'  Thorndike  riglit  of  the  church,  p.  62.     De  rebus  ecclesiast. 

2  Fertur  in  orienlis  partibus  per  singulas  urbcs  et  prsBfecturas  singulas  esse 
episcoporum  gubernationes. 

3  Lib.  7,  c.  19. 

*  Berteri,  Pithan.  w  DiatribsB.  Salamas.  cp.  ad  Am.  Eucharisti.  adver.  Sirmond. 
De  prim.  Pan.  Jac.  Gothofr.  Conjectur.  VindiciiE  Conjectur.  Blondeil  de  la 
primante  en  la  eglise,  etc. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  401 

most  probable,  the  metropolitan  province  answering  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  prsefectns  iirbis  and  the  patriarchate  of 
the  Roman  bishop  to  the  vicarius  urbis;  which  way  soever 
we  take  i*t,  we  see  it  answered  to  the  civil  government.  Pshall 
not  here  enter  that  debate,  but  only  briefly  at  present  set  down 
the  scheme  of  both  civil  and  ecclesiastical  government,  as  it  is 
represented  by  our  learned  Breerwood}  The  whole  empire 
of  Rome  v/as  divided  into  thirteen  diocesses,  whereof  seven 
belonged  to  the  east  empire,  and  six  (besides  the  prsefecture 
of  tlie  city  of  Rome,)  to  the  ivest.  Those  thirteen  diocesses, 
together  with  that  praefecture  contained  among  them  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty  provinces,  or  thereabout;  so  that  to  every 
diocess  belonged  the  administration  of  sundry  provinces:  lastly, 
every  province  contained  many  cities  within  their  territories. 
The  cities  had  for  their  rulers,  those  inferior  judges,  which  in 
the  law  are  called  defensores  civitatum,  "defenders  of  the 
cities  or  states,"  and  their  seats  were  the  cities  themselves,  to 
which  all  the  towiis  and  villages  in  their  several  territories 
were  to  resort  for  justice.  The  provinces  had  for  theirs  either 
proconsuls,  or  consulares,  or  praesides,  "  presidents,"  or  cor- 
rectores,  "  directors,"  four  sundry  appellations,  but  almost  all 
of  equal  authority;  and  their  seats  were  the  chief  cities  or 
metropolitans  of  the  provinces:  of  which  in  every  province 
there  was  one,  to  which  all  inferior  cities  for  judgment  in  mat- 
ters of  importance  did  resort.  Lastly,  the  diocesses  had  for 
theirs  the  lieutenants  called  mmr?7,  "deputies,  or  lieutenants," 
and  then-  seats  were  the  metropolitan  or  principal  cities  of  the 
diocess,  whence  the  edicts  of  the  emperor  or  other  laws  were 
published,  and  sent  abroad  into  all  the  provinces  of  the  diocess, 
and  where  {\\e praetorium,  or  "chief  tribunal  for  judgment" 
was  placed  to  determine  appeals,  and  minister  justice,  (as 
there  might  be  occasion,)  to  all  the  provinces  belonging  to  that 
jurisdiction.  And  this  was  the  disposition  of  the  Roman  go- 
vernor.— And  truly  it  is  wonderful,  (saith  that  learned  author,) 
how  nearly  and  exactly  the  church  in  her  government  did 
imitate  this  civil  ordination  of  the  Roman  magistrates.  For 
first,  in  every  city,  as  there  was  a  defensor  civitatis  for  secu- 
lar government,  so  was  there  placed  a  bishop  for  spiritual 
discipline,  in  every  city  of  the  east,  and  in  every  city  of  the 
west,  almost  a  several  bishop,  whose  jurisdiction  extended 
only  to  the  city,  and  the  places  within  the  territory.  For  which 
cause  the  jurisdiction  of  a  bishop  was  anciently  called  ^tagotxto, 

*  Discourse  of  the  patriarchal  government  of  the  ancient  Chur.  q.  1 
51 


402  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

signifying  not  o.  parish,  in  the  more  limited  sense  in  which  the 
word  is  now  taken,  that  is,  the  places  or  habitations  near  a 
church,  but  the  towns  and  villages  near  a  city:  all  which,  to- 
gether with  the  city,  the  bishophad  in  charge.  Secondly,  In 
every  province,  as  there  was  a  president,  so  there  was  an  arch- 
bishop, and  because  his  seat  was  the  principal  city  of  the 
province,  he  was  commonly  known  by  the  name  of  metro- 
politan. Lastly,  In  every  diocess,  as  there  was  a  lieutenant- 
general,  so  was  there  a  primate  seated  also  in  the  principal 
city  (5f  the  diocess  as  the  lieutenant  was,  to  whom  the  last 
determining  of  appeals  from  all  the  provinces  in  differences 
of  the  clergy,  and  the  sovereign  care  of  all  the  diocess  for 
sundry  points  of  spiritual  government  did  belong.  By  this 
you  may  see  that  there  were  eleven  primates  besides  the  three 
patriarchs;  for  of  the  thirteen  diocesses,  (besides  the  praefecture 
of  the  city  of  Rome,  which  was  administered  by  the  patriarch 
of  Rome,)  that  of  Egypt  was  governed  by  the  patriarch  of 
Alexandria,  and  that  of  the  Orient  by  the  patriarch  of  An- 
tiochia,  and  all  the  rest  hy\he  primates:  between  whom  and 
the  patriarchs  was  no  difference  of  jurisdiction  and  power,  but 
only  of  some  honour  which  accrued  to  them  by  the  dignity 
of  their  sees;  as  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  third  canon  of  the 
council  of  Constantinople,  whereby  "  Constantinople  is  ad- 
vanced to  the  honorary  title  of  a  patriarch  next  to  Rome,  be- 
cause it  was  New  Rome."^  Whereby  it  is  evident  that  the 
honour  belonging  to  the  bishop  of  old  Rome,  did  arise  from  its 
being  the  imperial  city.  The  honour  of  the  bishop  rising,  as 
Austin^  saith  that  of  the  deacons  of  Rome  did,  "  on  account 
of  the  magnificence  of  the  city  of  Rome,  which  seems  to  be 
the  head  of  all  cities."^  Hereby  we  now  fully  see  what  the 
original  was  of  the  power  oi  archbishops,  7netropolitans,n.nd 
patriarchs,  in  the  church,  viz.  the  contemperating  the  eccle- 
siastical government  to  the  civil. 

§  S.  The  next  evidence  that  the  church  did  not  look  upon 
itself  as  bound  by  a  divine  law,  to  a  certain  form  of  govern- 
ment, but  did  order  things  itself,  in  order  to  peace  and  unity, 
is,  that  after  episcopal  government  was  settled  in  the  church, 
yet  ordination  by  presbyters  was  looked  on  as  valid.  For 
which    these   instances   may  suffice:    About  the  year  390, 

'  Tov  /itEV  Toi  KaiVfTavTivoTroXEoe?  eTrnritoTrcv  sj^eiv  ra.  'nrgEtr^Eia  t»i?  ti/mhj  fxtra  tov  to; 
Pi>ifA,rtf  E7n»"xowov,  Jiaro  Eivat  avrov  veav  PaifASv. — In  Cod.  Cin.  166. 

2  Quest,  ex.  iitroq.  Test  q.  101. 

3  Propter  magnificentiam  urbis  Romanoe,  quas  caput  esse  videtur  omnium  civi- 
tatum. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  403 

Johannes  Cassianus  reports  that  one  Abbot  Daniel^  inferior 
to  none  of  those  who  lived  in  the  desert  of  Scetis,  was  made 
a  deacon,  "by  B.  Pashnutius,  a  presbyter  of  the  same 
desert.  For  so  mucli  did  he  rejoice  in  his  excellencies,  that 
him,  whom  he  had  known  for  liis  virtues  and  grace  to  be  his 
fellow,  he  hastened  to  render  his  equal  in  the  honour  of  the 
ministry.  And  since  he  by  no  means  could  bear,  that  he 
should  continue  in  an  inferior  office,  and  desiring  to  provide 
for  himself  the  most  worthy  successor,  whilst  he  yet  survived, 
he  advanced  him  to  the  Iionour  of  the  presbytery."^  What 
more  plain  and  evident,  than  that  here  a  presbyter  ordained  a 
presbyter,  which  we  now  here  read  was  pronounced  null  by 
Theophilus,  then  bishop  of  Alexandria,  or  by  any  others  at 
that  time?  It  is  a  Imown  instance,  that  in  the  ordination  of 
Pelagms,  first  bishop  of  Rome,  tliere  were  only  two  bishops 
concurred,  and  one  presbyter;  whereas,  according  to  the  fourth 
canon  of  the  Nicene  council,  three  bishops  are  absolutely  re- 
quired for  ordination  of  a  bishop:  either  then  Pelagius  was 
no  canonical  bishop,  and  so  the  point  of  succession  thereby 
fails  in  the  church  of  Rome,  or,  else  a  presbyter  hath  the 
same  intrinsical  power  of  ordination  which  a  bishop  hath, 
but  is  only  restrained  by  ecclesiastical  laws.^  In  the  time  of 
Eustathius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  which  was  done  A.  D.  328, 
as  Jacobus  Gothofredus  proves,^  till  the  time  of  the  ordination 
of  Pauliniis,  A.  D.  362,  which  was  thirty-four  years  space, 
when  the  church  was  governed  by  Paulinus  and  his  col- 
leagues withdrawing  from  the  public  assemblies,  it  will  be 
hard  to  say  by  whom  the  ordinations  were  performed  all  this 
while,  unless  by  Paulinus  and  his  colleagues.  In  the  year 
452,  it  appears  by  Leo,  in  his  epistle  to  Rusticus  Narbo- 
nensis,'^  that  some  presbyters  took  upon  them  to  ordain  as 
bishops;  about  which  he  was  consulted  by  Rusticus,  what 
was  to  be  done  in  that  case  with  those  so  ordained.  Leo''s 
resolution  of  that  cases  is  observable:  "Those  clergymen 
who  were  ordained  by  such  as  took  upon  them  the  office  of 
bishops,  in  churches  belonging  to  proper  bishops,  if  the  ordi- 


•  A  B.  Pashnutio  solitudinis  ejusdem  presbytero:  In  tantum  enim  virtutibus 
ipsius  adgaudcbat,  ut  quem  vitse  meritis  sibi  et  gratia  parem  noverat,  coaequare 
sibi  etiam  sacerdolii  honore  festinaret.  Siquidem  nequaquam  ferens  in  inferiore 
eum  ministerio  diutius  immorari,  optansq;  sibimet  successorem  dignissimum 
providere,  superstes  eum  presbyterii  honore  provexit. — Collat.  4,  c.  1. 

2  Anast.  Bil.  vit.  Peleg.  Prim. 

3  Dissert,  in  Philost.  1.  2,  cap.  7. 
4Ep.  92,c.  1. 


404  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

nation  were  performed  by  the  consent  of  the  bishops,  it  may- 
be looked  on  as  vahd,  and  those  presbyters  remain  in  their 
office  in  the  church."^  So  that  by  the  consent  ex  post  facto 
of  the  true  bishops  those  presbyters  thus  ordained,  were 
looked  on  as  lawful  presbyters,  which  could  not  be,  unless 
their  ordainers  had  an  intrinsical  power  of  ordination;  which 
was  only  restrained  by  the  laws  of  the  church;  for  if  they 
have  no  power  of  ordination,  it  is  impossible  they  should 
confer  anything  by  their  ordination.  If  to  this  it  be  answered, 
that  the  validity  of  their  ordination  did  depend  upon  the  con- 
sent of  the  bishops,  and  that  presbyters  may  ordain,  if  dele- 
gated thereto  by  bishops,  as  PauUniis  might  ordain  on  that 
account  at  Antioch.  It  is  easily  answered,  that  this  very 
power  of  doing  it  by  delegation,  doth  imply  an  intrinsical 
power  in  themselves  of  doing  it.  For  if  presbyters  be  forbid- 
den ordaining  others  by  the  scriptures,  then  they  can  neither 
do  it  in  their  own  persons,  nor  by  delegation  from  others. 
For  "  what  is  not  allowed  to  any  one  to  do  in  his  own  name, 
shall  not  be  allowed  him  to  do  in  the  name  of  another."^ 
And  that  rule  of  Cyprian  must  hold  true,  "  nothing  can  be 
granted  to  any  by  human  indulgence,  where  divine  precept 
intervenes,  and  appoints  a  law."^  There  can  be  no  dis- 
pensing with  divine  laws;  which  must  be,  if  that  may  be 
delegated  to  other  persons,  which  was  required  of  men  in  the 
office  wherein  they  are.  And  if  presbyters  have  power  of 
conferring  nothing  by  their  ordination,  how  can  an  after- 
consent  of  bishops  make  that  act  of  theirs  valid,  for  con- 
ferring right  and  power  by  it?  It  appears  then,  that  this 
power  was  restrained  by  the  laws  of  the  church,  for  pre- 
serving unity  in  itself;  but  yet  so,  that  in  case  of  necessity 
what  was  done  by  presbyters,  was  not  looked  on  as  invalid. 
But  against  this  the  case  oi  Ischyras,  ordained,  as  it  is  said,  a 
presbyter  by  Colluthus,  and  pronounced  null  by  the  council 
of  Alexandria,  is  commonly  pleaded.  But  there  is  no  great 
difficulty  in  answering  it.  For  Jii^st,  the  pronouncing  such 
an  ordination  null,  doth  not  evidence  that  they  looked  on  the 
power  of  ordination  as  belonging  of  divine  right  only  to 
bishops;  for  we  find  by  many  instances,  that  acting  in  a  bare 

'  Siqui  autem  clerici  ab  istis  pseudo-episcopis  in  iis  ecclesiis  ordinati  sunt,  qute 
ad  proprios  episcopos  pertinebant,  ordinatio  eoriim  cum  consensu  et  judicio  prse- 
sidentium  facta  est,  potest  rata  haberi,  ita  ut  in  ipsis  ecclesiis  perseverent. 

2  Quod  aiicui  suo  nomine  non  licet,  nee  alieno  licebit. — Reg.  juris.  67. 

'  Non  aliquid  cuiqiiam  largiri  potest  humana  indulgcntia,  ubi  intercedit  et 
legem  tribuit  divina  prasscriptio. —  Epist.  8. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  405 

contempt  of  ecclesiastical  canons  was  sufficient  to  degrade 
any  from  being  presbyters.^  Secondly.  If  Ischyras  had  been 
ordained  by  a  bishop,  there  were  circumstances  enough  to 
induce  tlie  council  to  pronounce  it  null :  first,  as  done  out 
of  the  diocess;  in  which  case  ordinations  are  nulled  by  Concil. 
Jirel.  cap.  13;  secondly,  done  by  open  and  pronounced  schis- 
matics; thirdly, done  sine  titulo,  "without  a  title,"  aTtoXsvy-ivui, 
"freely,"  and  so  nulled  by  the  canons  then.  Thirdly,  Col- 
luthus  did  not  act  as  a  presbyter  in  ordaining,  but  as  a 
bishop  of  the  Meletian  party  in  Cynus,  as  the  clergy  of  Mar- 
cotis,  speaking  of  Ischyras' s  ordination,  arto  Ko^tiooj^od  -tov  m^sa- 
^v-ts^ov  ^avtaaSivtoq  efUgxortrjv,  "  by  Collyt/ius,  a  presbyter, 
making  show  of  being  a  bishop;"  and  is  supposed  to  have 
been  ordained  a  bishop  by  Meletius.^  More  concerning  this 
may  be  seen  in  Blondell,  who  fully  clears  all  the  particulars 
here  mentioned.  So  that  notwithstanding  this  instance,  no- 
thing appears,  but  that  the  power  of  ordination  was  restrained 
only  by  ecclesiastical  laws. 

§  9.  The  last  thing  to  prove  that  the  church  did  act  upon 
prudence  in  church  government,  is  from  the  many  restraints 
in  other  cases  made  by  the  church  for  restraint  of  that  liberty 
which  was  allowed  by  divine  laws.  He  must  be  a  stranger 
to  the  ancient  canons  and  constitutions  of  the  church,  that 
takes  no  notice  of  such  restraints  made  by  canons,  as  in 
reference  to  observation  of  several  rites  and  customs  in  the 
churches,  determined  by  the  provincial  synods  of  the  several 
churches;  for  which  purpose  their  provincial  synods  were  still 
kept  up  in  the  eastern  church,  as  appears  by  the  testimony  of 
Firmilian  in  his  epistle  to  Cyprian:  "From  which  cause, 
amongst  us  it  necessarily  happens,  that  each  year,  the  elders 
and  governors  assemble  together,  to  despatch  the  matters  en- 
trusted to  our  care:  so  that  if  affairs  of  a  more  pressing  urgency 
occur,  than  may  be  directed  by  a  common  council,  as  when 
certain  brethren  have  fallen  from  the  faith,  &c.,  a  remedy 
may  be  sought,  not  as  if  they  could  achieve  remission  of  sins 
through  us,  but  by  us  might  be  turned  to  a  conviction  of  their 
own  failings,  and  be  impelled  more  fully  to  make  satisfac- 
tion^ to  the  Lord.""*    The  several  orders  about  the  discipline 

•  V.  Blondel.  Ap.  p.  325. 

2  Apol.  S.  3.  a.  317.  ad  327. 

3  Here  is  Catholicism!  man  satisfy  God!!!     Credat  JudaBus  et  Papa,  non  ego. 

■*  Qua  ex  causa  necessario  apud  nos  fit,  ut  per  singulos  annos  seniores  et  prae- 
positi  in  unum  conveniamus,  ad  disponenda  ea  qua  curse  nostrae  commissa  sunt: 
ut  si  que  graviora  sunt  communi  consilio  dirigantur,  lapsisqnoqiie  fratribus,  etc., 


406  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

of  the  church  were  determined  in  these  synods;  as  to  which, 
he  that  would  find  a  command  in  scripture  for  their  orders  about 
the  catechumens  and  lapsi,  will  take  pains  to  no  purpose,  the 
church  ordering  things  itself  for  the  better  regulating  the  seve- 
ral churches  they  were  placed  over.  A  demonstrative  argu- 
ment that  these  things  came  not  from  divine  command,  is, 
from  the  great  diversity  of  these  customs  in  several  places:  of 
which  besides  Socrates,  Sozoinen^  largely  speaks,  as  may 
easily  be  gathered  from  the  history  of  the  several  churches. 
When  the  church  began  to  enjoy  ease  and  liberty,  and  thereby 
had  opportunity  of  enjoying  greater  convenience  for  councils, 
we  find  what  was  determined  by  those  councils,  was  entered 
into  a  codex  caiionum^  "code  of  the  canons,"  for  that  pur- 
pose, which  was  observed  next  to  the  scriptures;  not  from  any 
obligation  of  the  things  themselves,  but  from  the  conducible- 
ness  of  those  things,  (as  they  judged  them,)  to  the  preserving 
the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church. 

medela  qu8Bratur:"non  quasi  k  nobis  remissionem  peccatorum  consequantur;  sed 
ut  per  nos  ad  intelligentiam  delictorum  suorum  convertantur,  et  Domino  pieniiis 
eatisfacere  cogantur, — Ep.  75. 

1  Hist.  lib.  7,  cap.  19. 

2  V.  Justo!.  prcefat.  in  Cod.  Canonum  Univers.  Ecol. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  407 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

An  inquiry  into  the  judgment  of  reformed  divines  concerning  the  unalterable 
divine  right  of  particular  forms  of  church  government:  wherein  it  is  made 
appear,  that  the  most  eminent  divines  of  the  Keformation  did  never  conceive 
any  one  form  necessary;  manifested  by  three  arguments.  1.  From  the  judg- 
ment of  those  who  make  tiie  form  of  church  government  mutable,  and  to 
depend  upon  the  wisdom  of  the  magistrate  and  church.  Tliis  cleared  to  have 
been  the  judgment  of  most  divines  of  the  Church  of  England  since  the  Refor- 
mation. Archbishop  Crannier's  judgment,  with  others  of  the  Reformation  in 
Edward  the  Sixth's  time,  now  first  published  from  his  authentic  MS.  The 
same  ground  of  settling  Episcopacy  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  time.  The  judgment 
of  Archbishop  Whitgiff,  Bishop  Bridge,  Dr.  Loe,  Mr.  Hooker,  largely  to  that 
purpose,  in  King  James's  time.  The  King's  own  opinion.  Dr.  Sutclift'e. 
Since  of  Crakanthorp,  Mr.  Hales,  Mr.Chillingworth.  The  testimony  of  foreign 
divines  to  the  same  purpose.  Chemnitius,  Zanchy.  French  divines,  Peter 
Moulin,  Fregevil,  Blondell,  Bochartus,  Amyraldus.  Other  learned  men,  Grotius, 
Lord  Bacon,  &c.  2.  Those  who  look  upon  equality  as  the  primitive  form, 
yet  judge  Episcopacy  lawful.  Augustine  Confession,  Melancthon,  Articuli 
Smaicaldici.  Prince  of  Anhalt,  Hyperius,  Hemingius:  the  practice  of  most 
foreign  churches.  Calvin  and  Beza  both  approving  Episcopacy  and  Diocesan 
Churches.  Salmasius,  &c.  3.  Those  who  judge  Episcopacy  to  be  the  primi- 
tive form,  yet  look  not  on  it  as  necessary.  Bishop  Jewell,  Fulk,  Field,  Bishop 
Downam,  Bishop  Bancroft,  Bishop  Morton,  Bishop  Andrews,  Saravia,  Francis 
Mason,  and  others.  The  conclusion  hence  laid  in  order  to  peace.  Principles 
conducing  thereto.  1.  Prudence  must  be  used  in  church  government,  at  last 
confessed  by  all  parties.  Independents  in  elective  synods,  and  church  cove- 
nants,  admission  of  members,  number  in  congregations.  Presbyterians  in 
classes,  and  synods,  lay-elders,  &c.  Episcopal  in  diocesses,  causes,  rites,  &,c. 
2.  That  prudence  best,  which  comes  nearest  primitive  practice.  A  Presidency 
for  life  over  an  Ecclesiastical  Senate  showed  to  be  that  form,  in  order  to  it. 
Presbyteries  to  be  restored.  Diocesses  lessened.  Provincial  Synods  kept 
twice  a  year.  The  reasonableness  and  easiness  of  accommodation  shown. 
The  whole  concluded. 

§  1.  Having  thus  far  proceeded,  through  divine  assistance, 
in  our  intended  method,  and  having  found  nothing  determin- 


408  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

ing  the  necessity  of  any  one  form  of  government  in  the  seve- 
ral laws  of  nature  and  Christ,  nor  in  the  practice  of  apostles, 
or  primitive  church;  the  only  thing  possible  to  raise  a  suspicion 
of  novelty  in  this  opinion, is,  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  judgment 
of  the  several  churches  of  the  Reformation.  I  know  it  is  the 
last  asylum  which  many  run  to,  when  they  are  beaten  off 
from  their  imaginary  fancies,  by  pregnant  testimonies  of  scrip- 
ture and  reason,  to  shelter  themselves  under  the  au^oj  f^^,  "the 
ipse  dixit,  or  he  himself  said  so,"'  of  some  particular  persons, 
to  whom  their  understandings  are  hored}  in  perpetual  slavery. 
But  if  men  would  but  once  think  their  understandings  at  age 
to  judge  for  themselves,  and  not  make  them  live  under  a  con- 
tinual pupilage;  and  but  take  the  pains  to  travel  over  the 
several  churches  of  the  Reformation,  they  would  find  them- 
selves freed  of  many  strange  misconceptions  they  were  pos- 
sessed with  before,  and  understand  far  better  the  ground  and 
reason  of  their  pitching  upon  their  several  forms,  than  they 
seem  to  do,  who  found  all  things  upon  a  divine  right.  I 
believe  there  will,  upon  the  most  impartial  survey,  scarce  be 
one  church  of  the  Reformation  brought,  which  doth  embrace 
any  form  of  government,  because  it  looked  upon  that  form  as 
only  necessary  by  an  unalterable  standing  law;  but  every  one 
took  up  that  form  of  government  which  was  judged  most 
suitable  to  the  state  and  condition  of  their  several  churches. 
But,  that  I  may  the  better  make  this  appear,  I  shall  make  use 
of  some  arguments  whereby  to  demonstrate,  that  the  most 
eminent  divines  that  have  lived  siuce  the  Reformation,  have 
been  all  of  this  mind,  that  no  one  form  is  determined  as  neces- 
sary for  the  church  of  God  in  all  ages  of  the  world.  For  if 
many  of  them  have  in  thesis  asserted  the  form  of  church 
government  mutable;  if  those  who  have  thought  an  equality 
among  ministers  of  the  primitive  form,  have  yet  thought  a 
government  by  episcopacy  lawful  and  useful;  if,  lastly,  those 
who  have  been  for  episcopacy,  have  not  judged  it  necessary, 
then  I  suppose  it  will  be  evident,  that  none  of  them  have 
judged  any  one  form  taken  exclusively  of  others,  to  be  founded 
upon  an  unalterable  right:  for  whatsoever  is  so  founded,  is 
made  a  necessary  duty  iti  all  churches  to  observe,  and  it  is 
unlawful  to  vary  from  it,  or  to  change  it  according  to  the 
prudence  of  the  church,  according  to  its  state  and  condition. 
I  now  therefore  undertake  to  make  these  things  out  in  their 
order. 

>  Exod.  xxi.  6. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVEKNMENT.  ^  409 

First,  I  begin  witli  those  who  have  in  thesis  asserted  the 
mutability  of  the  form  of  church  government.  Herein  I  shall 
not  follow  the  English  humour,  to  be  more  acquainted  with 
the  state  of  foreign  places  than  their  own;  but  it  being  of  the 
greatest  concern  to  know  upon  what  accounts  episcopal  go- 
vernmetit  was  settled  among  ourselves,  in  order  to  our  sub- 
mission to  it,  1  shall  therefore  mike  inquiry  into  the  judgment 
of  those  persons  who  either  have  been  instrumental  in  settling 
il,  or  the  great  defenders  of  it  after  its  settlement.  I  doubt 
not  but  to  make  it  evident,  that  before  these  late  unhappy 
times,  the  main  ground  for  settling  episcopal  government  in 
this  nation,  was  not  accounted  any  pretence  of  divine  right, 
but  the  conveniency  of  that  form  of  church  government  to 
the  state  and  condition  of  this  church  at  the  time  of  its  re- 
formation: for  which  we  are  to  consider,  that  the  reformation 
of  our  church  was  not  wrought  by  the  torrent  of  a  popular 
fury,  nor  the  insurrection  of  one  part  of  the  nation  against 
another,  but  was  wisely,  gravely,  and  maturely  debated,  and 
settled  with  a  great  deal  of  consideration.  1  meddle  not  with 
the  times  of  Henry  VIII,  when  I  will  not  deny  but  the  first 
quickening  of  the  reformation  might  be,  but  the  matter  of  It 
was  as  yet  rude  and  undigested;  I  date  the  birth  of  it  from 
the  first  settlement  of  that  most  excellent  Prince  Edward 
yi,  the  star  of  our  reformation;  who,  A.  D.  1547,  was  no 
sooner  entered  upon  his  throne,  but  some  course  was  presently 
taken  in  order  to  reformation.  Commissioners  with  injunc- 
tions were  dispatched  to  the  several  parts  of  the  land,  but 
the  main  business  of  the  reformation  was  referred  to  the  par- 
liament called  November  4,  the  same  year,'  when  all  former 
statutes  about  religion  were  recalled,  as  may  be  seen  at  large  in 
Mr.  Fox,  and  liberty  allowed  for  professing  the  gospel  accord- 
ing to  the  principles  of  reformation,  and  all  banished  persons 
for  religion  being  called  home.  Upon  this,  for  the  better  estab- 
lishing of  religion,  and  the  public  order  for  the  service  of  God, 
an  assembly  of  select  divines  is  called  by  special  order  from 
the  king's  majesty,  for  debating  of  the  settlement  of  things 
according  to  the  word  of  God,  and  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
church.  These  sat,  as  Mr.  Fox  tells  us,^  In  Windsor  Castle, 
where,  as  he  expresseth  It,  after  long,  learned,  wise,  and  de- 
liberate advices,  they  did  finally  conclude  and  agree  upon  one 
uniform  order,  &c.  No  more  Is  said  by  him  of  it,  and  less  by 
the  late  historian.     The  proceedings  then  In  order  to  reforma- 

"  Acts  and  Mon.  torn.  2,  p.  657.  «  Martyrol.  in  torn.  2,  p.  658, 659. 

52 


410  ^  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

tion,  being  so  dark  hitherto,  and  obscure,  by  what  is  as  yet 
extant,  much  Ught  may  accrue  thereto  by  the  help  of  some 
authentic  MSS.,  which,  by  a  hand  of  Providence,  have  hap- 
pily come  into  my  hands;  wherein  the  manner  and  method  of 
the  reformation  will  be  more  evident  to  the  world,  and  the 
grounds  upon  which  they  proceeded.  In  the  convocation 
that  year  sitting  with  the  parliament,  I  find  two  petitions 
made  to  the  archbishop  and  the  bishops  of  the  upper  house, 
for  the  calling  an  assembly  of  select  divines,  in  order  to  the 
settling  of  church  atfairs,  and  for  the  king's  grant  for  their 
acting  in  convocation;  which,  not  being  yet,  (to  my  know- 
ledge,) extant  in  public,  and  conducing  to  our  present  busi- 
ness, I  shall  now  publish  from  the  MS.  of  Bishop  Crantner. 
They  run  thus: 

Certain  petitions^  and  requests  made  by  the  clergy  of  the 
lower  house  of  the  convocation,  to  the  most  Reverend  Father 
in  God,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury's  Grace,  and  the  residue 
of  the  prelates  of  the  higher  house,  for  the  furtherance  of  cer- 
teyne  articles  following: 

"  First,  That  ecclesiastical  laws  may  be  made  and  estab- 
lished in  this  realm  by  xxxii,  persons,  or  so  many  as  shall 
please  the  king's  majesty  to  name  and  appoint,  according  to 
the  effect  of  a  late  statute  made  in  the  thirty-fifth  year  of  the 
most  noble  king,  and  of  most  famous  memory,  king  Henry 
the  Eighth.  So  that  all  judges  ecclesiastical  proceeding  after 
those  laws,  may  be  without  danger  and  peril. 

"Also  that  according  to  the  antient  custome  o(  this  realm, 
and  the  tenor  of  the  king's  writs  for  the  summoning  of  the 
parliament,  which  be  now,  and  ever  have  been  directed  to  the 
bishops  of  every  diocess,  the  clergy  of  the  lower  house  of  the 
convocation  may  be  adjoyned  and  associate  with  the  lower 
house  of  parliament,  or  else  that  all  such  statutes  and  ordi- 
nances as  shall  be  made  concerning  all  matters  of  religion  and 
causes  ecclesiastical  may  not  pass  without  the  sight  and  assent 
of  the  said  clergy. 

"Also  that  whereas  by  the  commandment  of  King  Henry 
8,  certeyne  prelates  and  other  learned  men  were  appointed  to 
alter  the  service  in  the  church,  and  to  devise  other  convenient 
and  uniform  order  therein,  who  according  to  the  same  ap- 
pointment did  make  certeyne  books  as  they  be  informed,  their 


'  Presuming  Ihut  the  above  and  the  sequel  are  literatim  copies  of  the  u'ocuinents 
in  question,  it  is  judged  preferable — without  any  correction  in  orthography,  or 
other  alteration — to  present  them  in  their  native  antiquity. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  411 

request  is,  that  the  said  books  may  be  seen  and  perused  by 
them  for  a  better  expedition  of  divine  service  to  bee  set  furthe 
accordingly. 

"Also  that  men  being  called  to  spiritual  promotions  or  be- 
nefices, may  have  sum  allowance  for  their  necessary  living, 
and  other  charges  to  be  susteyned  and  born  concerning  the 
said  benefices  in  the  first  year  wherein  they  pay  the  first 
fruits." 

The  other  is, 

"Where  the  clergy  in  the  present  convocation  assembled 
have  made  humble  suite  unto  the  most  Reverend  Father  in 
God  my  Lord  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  all  other  bishops. 
That  hit  may  please  them  to  be  a  mean  to  the  King's  Majesty, 
and  the  Lord  Protector's  Grace;  that  the  said  clergy,  according 
to  the  tenor  of  the  king's  will,  and  the  auncient  laws  and  cus- 
tonies  of  this  noble  realme,  might  have  their  rowme  and 
place,  and  be  associated  with  the  communs  in  the  nether 
howseof  this  present  parliament;  as  members  of  the  common- 
wealth, and  the  king's  most  humble  subjects;  and  if  this  may 
not  be  permitted  and  graunted  to  them,  that  then  no  laws 
concerning  the  Christien  religion,  or  which  shall  concern  espe- 
cially the  persons,  possessions,  rowmes,  lyveings,  jurisdictions, 
goods  or  cattails  of  the  said  clergy  may  passe  nor  be  enacted, 
the  said  clergy  not  being  made  privy  thereunto,  and  their 
aunswers  and  reasons  not  heard.  The  said  clergy  do  most 
humbly  beseech  an  answer  and  declaration  to  be  made  unto 
them,  what  the  said  most  Reverend  Father  in  God,  and  all 
other  the  bishoppes  have  done  in  this  their  humble  suit  and 
request,  to  the  end  that  the  said  clergy  if  nede  bee,  may  chose 
of  themself  such  able  and  discrete  persons  which  shall  ef- 
fectually follow  the  same  suite  in  name  of  them  all. 

"And  where  in  a  statute  ordeyned  and  established  by  auc- 
torite  of  parliament  at  Westminster,  in  the  twenty-fifth  year 
of  the  reigne  of  the  most  excellent  prince.  King  Henry  the 
Eighth,  the  cleregy  of  this  realme,  submitting  themselfe  to  the 
king's  highness,  did  knowledge  and  confesse  according  to  the 
truth,  that  the  convocations  of  the  same  cleregie  hath  ben  and 
ought  to  be  assembled  by  the  king's  writt.  And  did  promise 
further  in  verbo  sacerdotii,  that  they  never  from  thenceforth 
wolde  presume  to  attempt,  allege,  clayme,  or  put  in  use  or 
enact,  promulge  or  execute  any  new  canons,  constitutions, 
ordinances,  provincialls  or  other,  or  by  whatsoever  other  name 
they  shall  bee  called  in  the  convocation,  oneles  the  king's 
most  royal  assent  and  lisence  may  to  them  be  had,  to  make, 


410  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

promulgate  and  execute  the  same.  And  his  majesty  to  give 
his  most  royall  assent  and  auctorite  in  that  behalfe  upon  peyne 
of  every  one  of  the  cleregy  doeyng  the  contrary,  and  beinge 
thereof  convict,  to  sufFre  imprisonment,  and  make  fine  at  the 
king's  will.-  And  that  noe  canons,  constitutions,  or  ordinances 
shall  be  made  or  put  in  execution  within  this  realme  by  auc- 
torite of  the  convocation  of  the  cleregie,  which  shall  be  repug- 
nant to  the  king's  prerogative  royall,  or  the  customes,  laws,  or 
statutes  of  this  realme.  Which  statute  is  eftsoons  renewed 
and  established  in  the  xxvij.  yere  of  the  reigne  of  the  said 
most  noble  kinge,  as  by  the  tenor  of  both  statutes  more  at 
large  will  appear,  the  said  cleregie  being  presently  assembled 
in  convocation  by  auctorite  of  the  king's  writ,  do  desire  that 
the  king's  majestie's  licence  in  writeing  may  be  for  them  ob- 
teyned  and  granted  according  to  the  effect  of  the  said  statute's 
auctoriseing  them  to  attempt,  entreate  and  commune  of  such 
matters,  and  therein  freely  to  geve  their  consents,  which  other- 
wise they  may  not  doe,  upon  peyne  and  perill  premised. 

"Also  the  said  cleregie  desireth  that  such  matters  as  con- 
cerneth  religione  which  be  disputable,  may  be  quietly,  and  in 
good  order  reasond  and  disputed  emongst  them  in  this  howse, 
whereby  the  verites  of  such  matters  shall  the  better  appear. 
And  the  doubtes  being  opened  and  resolutely  discussed,  men 
may  be  fully  persuaded  with  the  quyetnes  of  their  con- 
sciences, and  the  tyme  well  spent." 

Thus  far   those  petitions,  containing  some  excellent  pro- 
posals for  a   thorough  reformation.     Soon  after  were  call- 
ed together  by  the  king's  special  order,  the   former  select 
assembly  at  Windsor  Castle,  where  met,  (as  far  as  I  can 
guess  by  the  several  papers  delivered  in  by  every  one  of 
them  singly,  and  subscribed  with  their  own  hands,  all  which 
I  have  perused,)  the  following  persons.    Thomas,  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury;  Edward,  Archbishop  of  York;  the  Bishop  of 
Rochester;  Edmund,  Bishop  of  London;  Robert,  Bishop  of 
Carlisle;    Dr.  George   Day;   Dr.  Thomas  Robertson;   Dr.  J. 
Redmaine;  Dr.  Edward  Leighton;  Dr.  Simon  Matthew;  Dr. 
William  Treshain;  Dr.  Richard  Cozen;  Dr.  Edgeworth;  Dr. 
Owen  Oglethorp;    Dr.  Thyrleby.      These   all  gave   in  their 
several  resolutions  in  papers,  to  the  questions  propounded, 
with  their  names  subscribed;  (a  far  more  prudent  way  than 
the  confusion  of  verbal  and  tedious  disputes,)  all  whose  judg- 
ments are  accurately  summed  up,  and  set  down  by  the  Arch- 
bishop  of  Canterbury  himself.      Their   resolutions  contain 
distinct  answers  to  several  sets  of  questions  propounded  to 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  413 

them.  The  first  set  contained  several  questions  about  the 
mass,  about  the  instituting,  receiving,  nature,  celebration  of 
it;  and  whether  in  the  mass  it  be  convenient  to  use  such 
speech  as  the  people  may  understand,  whether  the  whole 
were  fit  to  be  translated,  or  only  some  part  of  it;  with  several 
other  questions  of  the  same  nature.  The  second  set  is  more 
pertinent  to  our  purpose,  wherein  are  seventeen  questions 
proposed  to  be  resolved;  ten  of  them  belong  to  the  number  of 
sacraments,  the  other  seven  concern  church  government.  The 
questions  are  these: 

Q.  9.  "Whether  the  appostells  lacking  a  higher  power,  as  in 
not  having  a  Christian  king  among  them,  made  bishoppes  by 
that  necessity,  or  by  auctorite  given  them  of  God? 

Q.  10.  "Whether  bishops  or  priests  were  first;  and  if  the 
priests  were  first,  then  the  priest  made  the  bishop? 

^.11.  "Whether  a  bishop  hath  auctorite  to  make  a  priest 
by  the  scripture  or  no,  and  whether  any  other  but  onely  a 
bishop  may  make  a  priest? 

Q.  12.  "Whether  in  the  New  Testament  be  required  any 
consecration  of  a  bishop  or  priest,  or  onely  appointeinge  to  the 
office  be  sufficient? 

Q.  13.  "Whether  (if  it  fortuned  a  prince  Christien  lerned 
to  conquer  certen  domynyons  of  infidells,  having  non  but  the 
temporall  lerned  men  with  him)  it  be  defended  by  God's 
law,  that  he  and  they  should  preche  and  teche  the  word  of 
God  there  or  no,  and  also  make  and  constitute  priests  or  noe? 

Q.  14.  "Whether  it  be  forefended  by  Goddes  law,  that  if  it 
so  fortuned  that  all  the  bishopps  and  priests  were  dedde,  and 
that  the  word  of  God  shuld  there  unpreached,  the  sacrament 
of  baptisme  and  others  unministred,  that  the  king  of  that 
region  shulde  make  bishoppes  and  priests  to  supply  the  same 
or  noe? 

Q.  16.  "Whether  a  bishop  or  a  priest  may  excommunicate, 
and  for  what  crimes,  and  whether  they  only  may  excommu- 
nicate by  Goddes  law?" 

These  are  the  questions,  to  which  the  answers  are  severally 
returned  in  distinct  papers,  all  of  them  bound  together  in  a 
large  volume  by  Archbishop  Cranmer;  and  every  one  sub- 
scribed their  names,  and  some  their  seals,  to  the  papers  de- 
livered in.  It  would  be  too  tedious  a  work  to  set  down  their 
several  opinions  at  large;  only  for  the  deserved  reverence  all 
bear  to  the  name  and  memory  of  that  most  worthy  prelate, 
and  glorious  martyr.  Archbishop  Cranmer,  I  shall  set  down 
his  answer  distinctly  to  every  one  of  these  questions,  and  the 


414  THE  DIVINE   RIGHT  OF 

answers  of  some  others  to  the  more  material  questions  to  our 
purpose. 

Answ.  to  the  9  Q.  "All  Christian  princes  liave  committed 
unto  them  immediately  of  God  the  holle  cure  of  all  their  sub- 
jects, as  well  concerning  the  administration  of  Goddes  word 
for  the  cure  of  soul,  as  concerning  the  ministration  of  things 
political,  and  civil  governaunce,^ 

"And  in  both  theis  ministrations  thei  must  have  sundry 
ministers  under  them  to  supply  that  which  is  appointed  to 
their  several  office. 

"The  cyvile  ministers  under  the  kings  majesty  in  this 
realme  of  England,  be  those  whom  ye  shall  please  his  high- 
ness for  the  tyme  to  put  in  auctorite  under  him;  as  for  ex- 
ample, the  Lord  Chancellour,  Lord  Treasurer,  Lord  Greate 
Master,  Lord  Privy  Seal,  Lord  Admyral,  Mayres,  Shryves,&c. 

"The  ministers  of  Gods  wourde  under  his  majesty  be  the 
bishops,  parsons,  vicars,  and  such  other  priests  as  be  appointed 
by  his  highnes  to  that  ministration;  as  for  example,  the  bishop 
of  Canterbury,  the  bishop  of  Duresme,  the  bishop  of  Win- 
chester, the  parson  of  Wynwicke,  &c. 

"All  the  said  officers  and  ministers,  as  well  of  th'one  sorte 
as  the  other,  be  appointed,  assigned, and  elected  in  every  place, 
by  the  laws  and  orders  of  kings  and  princes, 

"In  the  admission  of  many  of  these  officers  bee  diverse 
comely  ceremonies  and  solemnities  used,  which  be  not  of  ne- 
cessity, but  only  for  a  good  order  and  semely  fashion.  For 
if  such  offices  and  ministrations  were  committed  without  such 
solemnitye,  thei  were  nevertheles  truely  committed. 

"And  there  is  no  more  promise  of  God,  that  grace  is  given 
in  the  committing  of  the  ecclesiastical  office,  then  it  is  in  the 
committing  of  the  cyvile.  In  the  apostles  time,  when  there 
was  no  Christien  princes  by  whose  authority  ministers  of 
Gods  word  might  be  appointed;  nor  synnes  by  the  sword  cor- 
rected; there  was  no  remedie  then  for  the  correction  of  vice, 
or  appoynteinge  of  ministers,  but  onely  the  consent  of  Chris- 
tien multitude  amonge  themselfe,  by  an  uniforme  consent  to 
follow  the  advice  and  persuasion  of  such  persons  whom  God 
had  most  endued  with  the  spirit  of  wisdome  and  counsaile. 
And  at  that  time,  for  as  much  as  Christian  people  had  no 
sword  nor  governor  among  them,  thei  were  constrained  of 
necessity  to  take  such  curates  and  priests,  as  either  they  knew 
themselfes  to  bee  meet  thereunto,  or  else  as  were  commended 

'  Archbish,  Cranmer's  answ.  ex  ipso  ejus  autograplio. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  415 

unto  them  by  other,  that  were  so  replete  with  the  spirit  of 
God,  with  such  knowledge  in  the  profession  of  Christ,  such 
wisdome,  such  conversation  and  counsell,  that  tliey  ought 
even  of  very  conscience  to  give  credit  unto  them,  and  to  ac- 
cept such  as  by  theym  were  presented.  And  so  some  tyme 
the  apostles  and  other  unto  whom  God  had  given  abundantly 
his  spirit,  sent  or  appointed  ministers  of  Gods  word,  some- 
time the  people  did  chose  such  as  they  thought  meete  there- 
unto. And  when  any  were  appointed  or  sent  by  the  appos- 
tles  or  other,  the  people  of  their  awne  voluntary  will  with 
thanks  did  accept  them;  not  for  the  supremitie,  imperie,  or 
dominion,  that  the  apostells  had  over  them,  to  command  as 
their  princes  or  masters:  but  as  good  people,  readie  to  obey 
the  advice  of  good  counsellours;  and  to  accept  any  thing  that 
was  necessary  for  their  edification  and  benefit." 

^ns.  to  the  10  Q.  "The  bishops  and  priests  were  at  one 
time,  and  were  not  two  things,  but  both  one  office  in  the  be- 
ginning of  Christs  religion." 

./^.  11.  "A  bishop  may  make  a  priest  by  the  scriptures,  and 
so  may  princes  and  governours  alsoe,  and  that  by  the  auctoritie 
of  God  committed  them,  and  the  people  alsoe  by  their  election. 
For  as  we  reade  that  bishops  have  done  it,  so  Christien  em- 
perours  and  princes  usually  have  done  it.  And  the  people 
before  Christien  princes  were,  commonly  did  elect  their  bishops 
and  priests." 

./?.  12.  "  In  the  New  Testament,  he  that  is  appointed  to  be 
a  bishop  or  a  priest,  needeth  no  consecration  by  the  scripture; 
for  election  or  appointeing  thereto  is  sufficient." 

Ji.  13.  "It  is  not  against  Gods  law,  but  contrary  they 
ought  in  dede  so  to  doe,  and  there  be  historyes  that  wit- 
nesseth,  that  some  Christien  princes  and  other  lay  men  un- 
consecrate  have  done  the  same." 

A.  14.  "  It  is  not  forbidden  by  God's  law." 

A.  15.  "A  bishop  or  a  priest  by  the  scripture,  is  neither  com- 
manded nor  forbidden  to  excommunicate.  But  where  the 
lawes  of  any  region  giveth  him  authoritie  to  excommunicate, 
there  they  ought  to  use  the  same  in  such  crymes  as  the  lawes 
have  such  authority  in.  And  where  the  lawes  of  the  region 
forbiddeth  them,  there  they  have  none  authority  at  all.  And 
thei  that  be  no  priests,  may  alsoe  excommunicate,  if  the  law 
allow  thereunto."  Thus  far  that  excellent  person;  in  whose 
judgment  nothing  is  more  clear,  than  his  ascribing  the  par- 
ticular form  of  government  in  the  church  to  the  determination 


416  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

of  the  supreme  magistrate.     This  judgment  of  his,  is  thus  sub- 
scribed by  him  with  his  own  hand, 

"  T.  Cantuarierift.  This  is  mine  opinion  and  sentence  at 
this  present,  which  I  do  not  temerariously  define,  but  do  remit 
the  judgment  thereof  holly  to  your  majesty." 

Which  1  have  exactly  transcribed  out  of  the  original,  and 
have  observed  generally  the  form  of  writing  at  that  time  used. 
In  the  same  MS.  it  appears,  that  the  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph, 
Therleby,  Redman,  and  Cox,  were  all  of  the  same  opinion 
with  the  archbishop,  that  at  first  bishops  and  presbyters  were 
the  same;  and  the  two  latter  expressly  cite  the  opinion  of 
Jerome  with  approbation.  Thus  we  see  by  the  testimony 
chiefly  of  him  who  was  instrumental  in  our  reformation,  that 
he  owned  not  episcopacy  as  a  distinct  order  from  presbytery 
of  divine  right;  but  only  as  a  prudent  constitution  of  the  civil 
magistrate  for  the  better  governing  in  the  church. 

§  3.  We  now  proceed  to  the  re-establishment  oi  church 
government  under  our  most  happy  Queen  Elizabeth.  After 
our  reformation  had  truly  undergone  the  fiery  trial  in  Queen 
Mary's  days,  and  by  those  flames  was  made  much  more  re- 
fined and  pure,  as  well  as  splendid  and  illustrious;  in  the 
articles  of  religion  agreed  upon,  our  English  form  of  church 
government  was  only  determined  to  be  agreeable  to  God's 
Holy  Word;  which  had  been  a  very  low  and  diminishing  ex- 
pression, had  they  looked  on  it  as  absolutely  prescribed  and 
determined  in  scripture,  as  the  only  necessary  form,  to  be 
observed  in  the  church.  The  first  who  solemnly  appeared  in 
vindication  of  the  English  hierarchy,  was  Archbishop  Whit- 
gift,  a  sage  and  prudent  person,  whom  we  cannot  suppose 
either  ignorant  of  the  sense  of  the  church  of  England,  or  afraid 
or  unwilling  to  defend  it.^  Yet  he  frequently  against  Cart- 
wright  asserts,  "  that  the  form  of  discipline  is  not  particularly 
and  by  name  set  down  in  scripture;  and  again,  no  kind  of 
government  is  expressed  in  the  word,  or  can  necessarily  be 
concluded  from  thence;  which  he  repeats  over  again,  no  form 
of  church  government  is  by  the  scriptures  prescribed  to,  or 
commanded  the  church  of  God.^  And  so  Doctor  Cosins  his 
chancellor  in  answer  to  the  abstract,  all  churches  have  not  the 
same  form  of  discipline,  neither  is  it  necessary  that  they 
should,  seeing  it  cannot  be  proved  that  any  certain  particular 
form  of  church  government  is  commended  to  us  by  the  Word 

'  Page  3;  77;  81,  82,  83,  84;  658.  «  Page  58. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  417 

of  God.  To  the  same  purpose  Doctor  Low,^  Complaint  of  the 
Cluirch;  no  certain  form  of  government  is  prescribed  in  the 
word,  only  general  rules  laid  down  for  il.^  Bishop  Bridges; 
God  hath  not  expressed  the  form  of  church  government,  at 
least,  not  so  as  to  bind  us  to  it." 

They  who  please  but  to  consult  the  third  book  of  learned 
and  judicious  Master  Hooker'' s  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  may  see 
the  mutability  of  the  form  of  church  goverinnent  largely  as- 
serted, and  fully  proved.  Yea,  this  is  so  plain  and  evident  to 
have  been  the  chief  opinion  of  the  divines  of  the  church  of 
England,  that  Parker  looks  on  it  as  one  of  the  main  founda- 
tions of  the  hierarchy,  and  sets  himself  might  and  main  to 
oppose  it;^  but  with  what  success,  we  have  already  seen.  If 
we  come  lower  to  the  time  of  King  James,  his  majesty  him- 
self declared  it  in  print,  as  his  judgment;  "it  is  granted  to 
every  Christian  king,  prince  and  commonwealth,  to  prescribe, 
within  its  own  jurisdiction,  that  external  form  of  church 
government,  which  approaches  as  much  as  possible  to  its 
own  form  of  civil  administration."'*  Doctor  Sutcliffe  de 
Presbyterio  largely  disputes  against  those  who  assert  that 
Christ  hath  laid  down  certain  immutable  laws  for  govern- 
ment in  the  church.*  Crakanthorp  against  Spalatensis 
doth  assert  the  mutability  of  such  things  as  are  founded 
on  apostolical  tradition:  "It  has  been  transmitted,  therefore, 
by  the  apostles,  but  though  transmitted,  it  is  changeable,  and 
to  be  changed,  according  to  the  experience  and  judgment  of 
the  church."^  To  the  like  purpose  speak  the  forecited  au- 
thors, as  their  testimonies  are  extant  in  Parker.  "  Whether 
every  example  of  the  primitive  church  constitutes  a  precept  or 
command?"  And  again,  "  perhaps  they  can  show  some  pre- 
cedent in  the  primitive  church,  but  that  is  neither  of  general 
application  nor  any  standing  rule  as  to  the  same  thing,  to  bind 
all  churches  in  all  ages."  So  Archbishop  Whitgift,  "  it  is 
not  equitable  to  enact  a  law  from  some  fact  or  example.  It 
is  never  allowed,  says  Zuinglius,  to  infer  what  is  right  from 
a  mere  matter  of  fact."^      By  which  principles,  the  divine 

1  Page  64,  66.  2  Church  Gov.  pag.  167. 

3  De  Polit.  Eccles.  1.  2,  c.  39,  &c. 

■•  Christiano  cuique  regi,  prineipi,  ac  reipublicee  concessum,  externam  in  rebus 
ecclesiasticis  regiininis  (brmam  suis  prsescribere,  quse  ad  civilis  administraliunis 
formain  qufim  proximo  accedat. — C.  11,  p.  66. 

5  Defens.  Eccl.  Angl.  c.  28,  s.  12. 

6  Traditum  igitur  ab  apostolis,  scd  traditum  et  mutabilc,  et  pro  usu  ac  arbitrio 
ecclesiae  mutandum. 

7  Bi:>hop  Bridges,  nucn  unumquodque  exemplum  ecclesiae  primitivs  prsceptum 

53 


418  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

right  of  episcopacy  as  founded  upon  apostolical  practice,  is 
quite  subverted  and  destroyed.  To  come  nearer  to  onr  own 
unhappy  limes:  not  long  before  the  breaking  forth  of  those 
never  sufficiently  to  be  lamented  intestine  broils,  we  have  the 
judgment  of  two  learned,  judicious,  rational  authors  fully  dis- 
covered as  to  the  point  in  question.  The  first  is  that  incom- 
parable man  Master  Hales, in  his  often  cited  Tract  of  Schism,* 
whose  words  are  these:  "  But  that  other  head  of  episcopal 
ambition  concerning  supremacy  of  bishops  in  divers  sees,  one 
claiming  supremacy  over  another,  as  it  hath  been  from  time 
to  time  a  great  trespass  against  the  church's  peace,  so  it  is  now 
the  final  ruin  of  it— the  east  and  west  through  the  fury  of  the 
two  prime  bishops  being  irremediably  separated  without  all 
hope  of  reconcilement.  And  besides  all  this  mischief,  it  is 
founded  on  a  vice  contrary  to  all  Christian  humility,  without 
which  no  man  shall  see  his  Saviour.  For  they  do  but  abase 
themselves  and  others,  that  would  persuade  us,  that  bishops 
by  Christ's  institution  have  any  superiority  over  men  further 
than  of  reverence,  or  that  any  bishop  is  superior  to  another 
further  than  positive  order  agreed  upon  among  Christians 
hath  prescribed;  for  we  have  believed  him  that  hath  told  us, 
that  in  Jesus  Christ  there  is  neither  high  nor  low,  and  that  in 
giving  honour,  every  man  should  be  ready  to  prefer  another 
before  himself;  which  saying  cuts  off  all  claim  certainly  of 
superiority,  by  title  of  Christianity,  except  men  think  that 
these  things  were  spoken  only  to  poor  and  private  men. 
Nature  and  religion  agree  in  this,  that  neither  of  them  had  a 
hand  in  this  heraldry  of  secundum  sub  et  supra;  all  this  comes 
from  composition  and  agreement  of  men  among  themselves; 
wherefore  this  abuse  of  Christianity  to  make  it  lacquey  to 
ambition,  is  a  vice  for  which  I  have  no  extraordinary  name  of 
ignominy,  and  an  ordinary  I  will  not  give  it,  lest  you  should 
take  so  transcendent  a  vice  to  be  but  trivial."  Thus  that 
grave  and  wise  person,  whose  words  savour  of  a  more  than 
ordinary  tincture  of  a  true  spirit  of  Christianity,  that  scorns 
to  make  religion  a  footstool  to  pride  and  ambition.  We  see 
plainly  he  makes  all  difference  between  church  officers  to  arise 


aut  mandatiim  facial?  And  again,  Forte  rerum  nonnullarum  in  primitiva  cccle- 
sia  cxeinplum  aliquod  ostendere  possunt,  sed  nee  id  ipsum  generale,  ncc  cjusdcm 
perpetunm  regulam  aliquani,  qusB  omnes  ecclesias  et  etales  omncs  ad  illud  ex- 
emplum  astringat.  So  Archbishop  Wliitgift,  Ex  facto  aut  exempio  legem  lacere, 
iniquuin  est.  Nunquurn  licet,  inquit  Zuinglius,  &  facto  ad  jus  arguiucntari. — 
De  Poht.  Eccles.  1. 2,  c.  24. 
'Pag.  13. 


FORMS  OF  CHUICH  C^OVBRBTMENT. 


419 


from  consent  of  parties,  and  lot  from  any  divine  law.  To 
the  same  purpose  Master  Chilingworth  propounds  tiiis  ques- 
tion among  many  others  tohi;adversary:^  "Whether  any  ope 
kind  of  these  external  forms  aid  orders  and  government  be  so 
necessary  to  the  being  of  a  clurch,  but  that  they  may  be  di- 
verse in  divers  places,  and  thata  good  and  peaceable  Christian 
may  and  ought  to  submit  hinself  to  the  goverimient  of  the 
place  wiiere  he  lives  whosoeier  he  be?"  Which  question, 
according  to  the  tenor  of  the  reit  to  which  it  is  joined,  must  as 
to  the  former  part  be  resolvec  in  the  negative,  and  as  to  the 
latter,  in  the  affirmative:  whih  is  the  very  thing  I  have  been 
so  long  in  proving  of,  viz.  thano  one  form  of  church  govern- 
ment is  so  necessary  to  the  baig  of  a  church,  but  that  a  good 
and  peaceable  Christian  may  .nd  ought  to  conform  himself  to 
the  government  of  that  plast  where  he  lives.  So  much  I 
suppose  may  suffice  to  shov  that  the  opinion  which  I  have 
asserted, is  no  stranger  in  ouown  nation;  no,  not  among  those 
who  have  been  professed  efenders  of  the  ecclesiastical  go- 
vernment of  this  church, 

§  4.  Having  thus  far  acquinted  ourselves  with  the  state  and 
customs  of  our  own  country^ve  may  be  allowed  the  liberty  of 
visiting  foreign  churches:  taiee  how  far  they  concur  with  us 
in  the  matter  in  question,  'he  first  person  whose  judgment 
we  shall  produce  asserting  tb  mutability  of  the  form  of  church 
government,  is  that  great  ligt  of  the  German  church,  Chem- 
nitius,  whom  Brightman  hd  so  high  an  opinion  of  as  to 
make  him  to  be  one  of  th  angels  in  the  churches  of  the 
Revelation.  He,  discoursin  about  the  sacrament  of  order, 
as  the  papists  call  it,  lays  dwn  these  following  hypotheses^ 
as  certain  truths.  "First,  wat  and  how  many  such  degrees 
and  orders  there  ought  to  beds  not  manifest  from  the  word  of 
God;  secondly,  that  there  wre  not  always,  in  the  apostles' 
times,  the  same,  and  as  may  degrees  of  orders  in  all  the 
churches,  may  be  clearly  cobcted  from  the  epistles  of  Paul 
written  to  the  different  churaes;  thirdly,  that  there  was  not, 
in  their  times,  such  a  distinctin  of  orders,  but  that  frequently 
one  and  the  same  character  sstained  all  the  duties  belonging 
to  the  ministry.  Such  admirstrations,  therefore,  in  the  apos- 
tles' times,  were  free,  a  certaiirespect,  however,  to  order,  pro- 
priety, and  edification  being  naintained.  That  example  of 
the  apostles,  the  primitive  chich,  under  the  same  regard  and 
freedom,  imitated.     The  rank  however,  of  ministerial  duties 


'Chilling.  Epl.ch.  6,  8.  39. 


420  THE  DIVINJ  RIGHT  OF 

were  distributed,  but  evidentlynot  after  the  same  manner  as 
in  Corinth,  or  Ephesus,  but  acording  to  the  condition  or  cir- 
cumstances of  each  church:  wience  is  to  be  inferred  the  free- 
dom as  to  those  ministerial  raiks  then  existing  in  the  general 
distribution."^  The  main  thng  he  asserts,  is,  the  church's 
freedom  and  liberty  as  to  the  (rders  and  degrees  of  those  who 
superintend  the  affairs  of  the  church,  which  he  builds  on  a 
threefold  foundation.  1.  Th.1  the  word  of  God  nowhere 
commands,  what  or  how  many  degrees  and  orders  of  ministers 
there  shall  be.  2  That  in  th?  apostles'  times,  there  was  not 
the  like  number  in  all  churchs,  as  is  evident  from  PauVs 
epistles,  3.  That  in  the  apostss'  times  in  some  places  one 
person  did  manage  the  severaloffices  belonging  to  a  church. 
Which  tiiree  propositions  of  ths  learned  divine,  are  the  very 
basis  and  foundation  of  all  oui foregoing  discourse,  wherein 
we  have  endeavoured  to  prove  hese  several  things  at  large. 
The  same  learned  person  hathi  set  discourse  to  show  how 
by  degrees  the  offices  in  the  chrch  did  rise,  not  from  any  set 
or  standing  law,  but  for  the  cuvenient  management  of  the 
church's  affairs, and  concludes  Is  discourse  thus:  "He  shows 
what  was  the  first  cause  of  degaes,  or  origin  of  orders  in  the 
apostolical  church;  what  was  he  design,  service,  and  what 
ought  to  be  the  limit  of  thins  of  this  nature,  whether  of 
degrees  or  orders;  that  ecclesiascal  societies  might  more  con- 
veniently, correctly,  diligently,  ad  with  some  order  and  autho- 
rity to  edification,  observe  the  sveral  offices  pertaining  to  the 
ministry."^  The  sum  is,  it  apears  by  the  practice  of  the 
apostolical  church,  that  the  stie,  condition  and  necessity  of 
every  particular  church,  oughlto  be  the  standard,  and  mea- 
sure what  offices  and  degrees  c  persons  ought  to  be  in  it.   As 

■  ].  Non  esse  Dei  verbo  mandatum,  <i  vel  quot  tales  gradus  seu  ordines  esse 
dcbcant.  2.  Non  fuisse  tempore  aposJorum  in  omnibus  ccclesiis  et  semper, 
eosdem  et  totidem  gradus  seu  ordinesid  quod  ex  epistolis  Pauli  ad  divcrsas 
ecclesias  scriptis  manifesto  colligitur.  3.  Non  fuit  tempore  apostnlorum  talis 
distributio  graduum  iliorum,  quint  seepii  unus  et  idem  omnia  ilia  ofHcia,qusB  ad 
ministerium  pertinent,  sustineres.  Lilrse  igitur  fuerunt  apostolorum  tempore 
tales  ordinationes,  liubilA  ratione  ordini  decori  et  sedificationis,  etc.  Illud  upos- 
lolorurn  excmplum  primitiva  ecelesia,adem  ratione  ct  simili  libertate  imitata 
est.  Gradus  cnim  officiorum  minist<i  distributi  lucrunt:  non  autcm  eadom 
plane  ratione  sieut  in  Corinthiaca  vel  phesina  ecclesia,  sed  pro  ratione  circum- 
stantiarum  cnjusque  ecclesiae;  unde  cdgitur  quap  fuerit  in  distributione  illorum 
graduum  libertas. — Exam.  Con.  Trid..  2,  de  sacram.  ord.  can.  1,  4J3,  414. 

2  Et  liaec  prima  graduum  seu  ordiuin  origo  in  ecclesia  ajxistolica  ot^tendit 
quae  causa,  qute  ratio,  quis  usus  et  fin  esse  debeat  liujusmodi  seu  gniduuin,  seu 
ordinum;  ut  scilicet  pro  ratione  coeluL'cclesiastici,  singula  officia  quse  ad  minis- 
terium pertinent,  commodius,  rectius,iligentius,  et  ordine  cum  aliqua  gravitate 
ad  aBdificationem  obeantur. — Pag.  41J 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.'  421 

to  the  uncertain  number  of  officers  in  the  churches  in  apos- 
tolical limes,  we  have  a  full  and  express  testimony  of  the 
famous  Centiiriatow's  of  Magdeburg.     "But  how  many  per- 
formed the  ministerial  duties  in  each  church,  is  not  men- 
tioned in  history,  nor  is  it  anywhere  enjoined;  so  that  there 
were  indifferently  several  in  each.     But  as  fewer  or  more 
required  a  congregation  or  church,  so  fewer  or  more  were 
admitted  to  the  ministry."^  We  see  by  them  there  is  no  other 
certain  rule  laid  down  in  scripture,  what  number  of  persons 
shall  act  in  the  governing  every  church;  only  general  pru- 
dence according  to  the  church's  necessity,  was  the  ground  of 
determining  the  number  then,  and  must  be  so  still.    The  next 
person  whose  judgment  is  fully  on  our  side,  is  a  person  both 
of  learning  and  moderation,  and  an  earnest  restorer  of  disci- 
pline as  well  as  doctrine  in  the  church,  1  mean  Hieron  Zanchy, 
who  in  several  places  hath  expressed  his  judgment  to  the 
purpose  we  are  now  upon.     The  fullest  place  is  in  his  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  penned  by  him  in  the  seventieth  year  of  his 
age;  and  if  ever  a  man  speaks  his  mind,  it  must  be  certainly 
when  he  professeth  his  judgment  in  a  solemn  manner  by  way 
of  his  last  will  and  testament  to  the  world,  (that  when  the 
soul  is  going  into  another  world,  he.  may  leave  his  mind 
behind  him.)   Thus  doth  Zanchy  in  that  Confession,  in  which 
he  declares  this  to  be  his  judgment  as  to  the  form  of  church 
government;  that  in  the  apostles'  times  there  were  but  two 
orders  under  them,  viz.  of  pastors  and  teachers:  but  presently 
subjoins  these  words:  "Nevertheless,  mean  while,  we  censure 
not  the  fathers,  because  according  to  their  variable  and  rela- 
tive connections,  whether  of  dispensing  the  word,  or  govern- 
ing the  church,  they  also  multi|)lied  the  several  orders  of  the 
ministry;  since  that  too  was  free  to  them,  as  well  as  to  us,  and 
since  it  appears,  that  it  was  done  from  sufficient  causes,  at 
that  time  belonging  either  to  order,  propriety  or  to  edification." 
And  in  the  next  section:  "for  we  know  that  our  God  is  a  God 
of  order,  and  not  of  confusion,  and  that  the  church  is  pre- 
served by  order,  and  lost  by  disorder.     For  which  reason, 
he  instituted  many  and  diverse  grades  of  ministry,  not  only 
formerly  in  Israel,  but  also  afterwards  in  the  church,  col- 
lected from  the  Jews  and  Gentiles;  and  for  the  same  cause 
left  it  free  to  the  churches,  whether  more  should  be  added 

'  Qnst  verb  in  qualibct  ecclesia  personse  minislerio  funcfse  sint,  non  est  in 
hisloriis  annotatum,  nee  nsquain  est  praecentum,  ut  seque  multa  in  singulis  csscnt, 
sed  prout  paueitas  ant  inullitudo  ccEtus  postulavit,  ita  pauciores  ajut  plures  ad  mi- 
misterium  ecclesise  sunt  adhibiti. — Con.  1,  1.  2,  cap.  7. 


422  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

or  not,  only  that  it  should  be  done  to  edification, "^  He 
asserts  it  to  be  in  the  church's  power  and  hberty  to  add 
several  orders  of  ministers  according  as  it  judgeth  tliem  tend 
to  edification;  and  saith,  he  is  far  from  condemning  the  course 
of  the  primitive  church  in  erecting  one  as  bisliop  over  the 
presbyters,  for  better  managing  church  affairs;  yea,  arch- 
bishops, metropohtans,  and  patriarchs,  as  instituted  by  the 
primitive  church  before  the  Nicene  council,  he  thinks  may  be 
both  excused  and  defended,  although  afterward  they  degene- 
rated into  tyranny  and  ambition.  And  in  his  obsei^vations 
upon  his  confession,  penned  chiefly  upon  the  occasion  of  the 
exceptions  of  Magnus  quidam  Vir,  "a  certain  great  man," 
(some  will  guess  who  that  was,)  taken  at  the  free  delivery  of 
his  nnnd  concerning  the  polity  of  the  primitive  church,  he 
hath  expressions  to  this  purpose:  That  what  was  unani- 
mously determined  by  the  primitive  church  without  any  con- 
tradiction to  scripture,  did  come  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  "Such 
things,"  saith  he,  "as  are  so  determined,  I  neither  will  nor 
can  with  a  safe  conscience  condemn.  For  who  am  I,  that  I 
should  condemn  that  which  the  whole  church  of  God  hath 
approved?"^  A  sentence  as  full  of  judgment  as  modesty. 
And  that  he  might  show  he  was  not  alone  in  this  opinion,  he 
produces  two  large  and  excellent  discourses  oi  Martin  Bucer 
concerning  the  polity  of  the  ancient  church,  which  he  recites 
with  approbation;  the  one  out  of  his  commentaries  on  the 
Epliesians,  the  other  de  Disciplina  Ckricali,  "on  Clerical 
Discipline;"  whereby  we  have  gained  another  testimony  of 
that  famous  and  peaceable  divine,  whose  judgment  is  too  large 
to  be  here  inserted.  The  same  opinion  of  Zanchy  may  be 
seen  in  his  commentaries  upon  the  fourth  command,'^  wherein 
he  asserts  no  particular  form  to  be  prescribed,  but  only  gene- 
ral rules  laid  down  in  scripture,  that  all  be  done  to  edification; 

1  Interea  taincn  non  improbamus  paires,  quod  juxta  variam,  turn  verbi  dis- 
pensandi,  turn  rcgendoe  ecclcsiae  rationem,  varies  quoque  ordines  minisirorum 
multiplicarint,  qu.indo  id  iis  liberum  fuit,  sicut  et  nobis;  et  quando  constat  id 
ab  illis  factum  linnestis  de  causis,  ad  ordinem,  ad  decorum,  et  ad  Eedificalionem 
ccclesiaB  pro  eo  tempore  pertinentibus.  And  in  the  next  section,  Novimus  enim 
deutn  nostrum,  dt'um  esse  ordinis  non  conlusionis;  et  ecclesiaui  servuri  ordine, 
perdi  autem  ara^ia:  qua  de  causa  multos  etiani  et  divcrsos,  non  solum  olim  in 
Israeic,  verum  etiam  i)ost  in  eccicsia  ex  Judajis  et  Gcntibus  coilecta,  ministrorum 
ordines  instiluii;  et  candem  etiam  ob  cansain,  liberum  rcliquit  ecclesiis,  ut  plures 
addcrcnt  vol  non  adderent,  modo  ad  sediticationem  fieret. — Confess,  fidci,  cap.  25, 
s.  1(1,  11,  torn.  7,  op.  Miscel, 

2  nine  fit  ut  quae  sint  iiujuscemodi.eaegoimprobare  nee  velim.necaudeam  bona 
con.scientia,   Quis  autcm  ego  sim,  qui  quod  tota  ecclesia  approbavit,  improbem? 

3  Tom.  4,  op.  I.  1,  in  4,  praecept.  q.  2. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  423 

speaking  of  the  original  of  episcopacy  which  came  "not  from 
a  divine  dispensation,  but  from  the  custom  of  the  church,  and 
that  not  in  the  least  censured.  For  Christ  prohibits  not  this 
order,  but  rather  left  a  general  rule  by  his  apostles,  that  all 
things  should  be  done  to  edification."^  It  is  then  most  clear 
and  evident  that  neither  Bucer,  Chemnitius  or  Zanchy  did 
look  upon  the  church  as  so  bound  up  by  any  immutable  form 
of  church  government  laid  down  in  scripture,  but  it  might 
lawfully  and  laudably  alter  it  for  better  edification.  For 
these  learned  divines  conceiving  that  at  first  there  was  no 
difference  between  bishop  and  presbyter,  and  commending 
the  polity  of  the  church  when  episcopacy  was  set  in  a  higher 
order,  they  must  of  necessity  hold  that  there  was  no  obliga- 
tion to  observe  that  form  which  was  used  in  apostolical  times. 
Our  next  inquiry  is  into  the  opinion  of  the  French  church, 
and  the  eminent  divines  therein.  For  Calvin  and  Beza  we 
have  designed  them  under  another  rank.  At  present  we 
speak  of  those  who  in  thesis  assert  the  form  of  church 
government  mutable.  The  first  we  meet  with  here  who 
fully  lays  down  his  opinion  as  to  this  matter,  is,  Job.  Fregevil, 
who  although  in  his  Palma  Christiana,  "his  Christian 
Palm,"^  he  seems  to  assert  the  divine  right  of  primacy  in  the 
church,  yet  in  his  Politic  Reformer,  he  asserts  both  forms 
of  government  by  equality  and  inequality,  to  be  lawful. 
And  we  shall  the  rather  produce  his  testimony,  because  of 
the  high  character  given  of  him  by  the  Reverend  Bishop 
Hall?  "Wise  Fregevil,  a  deep  head,  and  one  that  was  able 
to  cut  even  betwixt  the  league,  the  church  and  state."  His 
words  are  these:  "As  for  the  English  government,  I  say,  it  is 
grounded  upon  God's  word  so  far  forth  as  it  keepeth  the  state 
of  the  clergy  instituted  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  confirmed 
in  the  New.  And  concerning  the  government  of  the  French 
church,  so  far  as  concerneth  the  equality  of  ministers,  it  hath 
the  like  foundation  in  God's  word:  namely  in  the  example  of 
the  apostles;  which  may  suflice  to  authorize  both  these  forms 
of  estate;  albeit  in  several  times  and  places.  None  can  deny 
but  that  the  apostles  among  themselves  were  equal  as  con- 
cerning authority,  albeit  there  were  an  order  for  their  pre- 
cedency.    When  the  apostles  first  planted  churches,  the  same 

•  Diepositione  divina,  but  consuetudine  ccclesiastica,  atque  ea  quidem  minime 
iraprobanda;  neq,  enim  hunc  ordinem  prohibuit  Christus  scd  polius  regulam 
generalein  reliquitper  apostolum,  ut  in  ecclesia  omnia  fiant  ad  edificalionem. 

2  P.  70,  &c. 

3  Episcopacy  by  Divine  Right,  a.  5,  p.  20. 


424  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

being  small  and  in  affliction,  there  were  not  as  yet  any  other 
bishops,  priests  or  deacons  but  themselves;  they  were  the 
bishops  and  deacons,  and  together  served  the  tables.  Those 
men  therefore  whom  God  raiseth  up  to  plant  a  ciuirch  can  do 
no  belter,  than  after  the  examples  of  the  apostles  to  bear 
themselves  in  equal  authority.  For  this  cause  liave  the 
French  ministers,  planters  of  the  reformed  church  in  France 
usurped  it;  howbeit  provisionally— reserving  liberty  to  alter 
it,  according  to  the  occurrences.  But  the  equality  that  rested 
among  the  bishops  of  the  primitive  church,  did  increase  as 
the  churches  increased;  and  thence  proceeded  the  creation  of 
deacons,  and  afterwards  of  other  bishops  and  priests;  yet 
ceased  not  the  apostles'  equality  in  authority;  but  they  that 
were  created,  had  not  like  authority  with  the  apostles;  but 
the  apostles  remained  as  sovereign  bishops,  neither  were  any 
greater  than  they.  Hereof  I  do  infer  that  in  the  state  of  a 
mighty  and  peaceable  church,  as  is  the  church  of  England,  or 
as  the  church  of  France  is,  (or  such  might  be,  if  God  should 
call  it  to  reformation,)  the  state  of  the  clergy  ought  to  be  pre- 
served. For  equality  will  be  hurtful  to  the  state,  and  in  time 
breed  confusion.  But  as  the  apostles  continued  churches  in 
their  equality  so  long  as  the  churches  by  them  planted  were 
small;  so  should  equality  be  applied  in  the  planting  of  a 
church,  or  so  long  as  the  church  continueth  small,  or  under 
persecution;  yet  may  it  also  be  admitted  as  not  repugnant  to 
God's  word  in  those  places  where  already  it  is  received, 
rather- than  to  innovate  anything.  I  say,  therefore,  that  even 
in  the  apostles'  times  the  state  of  the  clergy  increased  as  the 
church  increased.  Neither  was  the  government  under  the 
bondage  of  Egypt,  and  during  the  peace  of  the  land  of 
Canaan  alike;  for  Israelites  had  first  judges,  and  after  their 
state  increased,  kings. 

Thus  far  that  politic  reformer.  Whose  words  are  so  full 
and  pertinent  to  the  scope  and  drift  of  this  whole  treatise,  that 
there  is  no  need  of  any  commentary  to  draw  them  to  my 
sense.  The  next  I  shall  pitch  upon  in  the  French  church,  is 
a  triumvirate  of  three  as  learned  persons  in  their  several 
ways  as  most  that  church  or  any  since  the  Reformation  hath 
bred;  they  are  Blondell,  Bochartus  and  Amyraldus.  The 
first  is  that  great  church  antiquary,  Blondell,  the  known  and 
learned  asserter  of  Jerome's  opinion  concerning  the  primitive 
equality  of  presbyters,  who  was  likewise  of  Jerome's  mind 
as  to  the  mutability  of  that  form  if  the  church  saw  fit,  as  ap- 
pears by  these  words  of  his  speaking  of  that  form  of  eccle- 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  425 

siastical  polity  which  Hilary  speaks  of,  viz.  the  eldest  pres- 
byters having  the  primacy  of  order  above  the  rest,  "  How- 
ever, let  it  be  supposed,"  saith  he,  "  that  it  arose  whilst  the 
apostles  not  only  did  not  censure,  but  openly  commended  it; 
and  I  frankly  believe,  as  in  a  similar  case,  Crackanthorp,  of 
blessed  memory,  felt  that  it  was  freely  practised  from  the  be- 
ginning, whether  handed  down  by  the  apostles,  or  by  their 
disciples,  but  changeable,  and  to  be  changed,  according  to  the 
experience  and  judgment  of  the  church."  And  not  long 
after,  he  says,  ''But  we  dread  congregations  having  no  head, 
or  having  many,  less  than  those  violent  zealots  of  the  hier- 
archy, on  whom  it  is  incumbent  more  accurately  to  investi- 
gate, whether  a  perpetual  supremacy,  hath  of  divine  right, 
been  decreed  to  any  one  of  the  pastoral  office,  now  in  the 
enjoyment  of  a  benefice,  or  that  the  Spirit  himself,  who  pre- 
sides in  the  churches,  hath  left  it  to  their  judgment,  that  they 
should  provide  for  themselves,  in  whatever  way  each  should 
please,  a  convention  of  equals  for  its  head."^  Whereby  that 
most  learned  writer  for  presbytery,  (as  some  have  called  him,) 
evidently  asserts  the  mutability  of  the  particular  form  of 
church  government,  and  that  it  is  left  to  the  prudence  of  the 
church,  to  conclude  and  determine,  in  what  way  and  manner 
its  rulers  shall  act  for  moderating  its  common  concerns.  The 
next  is  the  learned  and  ingenuous  Bochartiis,v^\\o,  ex  pro- 
fesso,  doth  assert  the  opinion  I  have  been  pleading  thus  long 
in  the  behalf  of,  in  his  epistle  to  Dr.  Morley.^  He  having  de- 
clared himself  to  be  of  Jerome's  mind,  as  to  the  apostles' 
times,  that  the  churches  were  governed  communi  concilio 
Presbyterorum,  and  withal  asserting  the  great  antiquity  of 
episcopacy,  as  arising  soon  after  the  apostles'  times,  and  that 
magno  cumfructu,  "with  considerable  advantage,"  as  a  very 
useful  form  of  government.  He  subjoins  these  words  directly 
overthrowing  the  divine  right  of  either  form  of  government, 
by  episcopacy  or  presbytery:   "Neither  do  I  think,  that  the 


'  Fac  tamen,  saith  he,  apostolis  non  modo  non  improbantibus,  sed  palam  laudan- 
tibus  ortam,cgo  sand  libera  ab  initio  observatnm,  Christianisque  sive  ab  apostolis 
sive  ab  eorum  discipulis  traditam,  sed  ut  mutabilem  et  pro  usu  ac  arbifrio  ecclesiee 
niutandatn  (prout  in  causa,  consimili  pise  memoriffi  Crakanthorpius  sensit)  credi- 
derim:  And  not  long-  after, — Nee  consessus  capite  carenles,  aut  multicipites, 
minds  horremus,  quam  fervidiores  hierarchici:  quibus  indagandum  curalitis  in- 
cumbit.  An  pastorum  cuiquam  quocunque  titiilo  nunc  gaudeat,  divine  jure 
•BT^oiratna  eaque  perpetua  decreta  sit.  An  vero  in  arbitrio  ecclesisB,  ipse  (qui 
prasest  ecclesiae)  spiritus  reliquerit,  ut,  quocunque  modo  liberet,  sibi  de  capite 
la-oTifxtey  collegia  providerent. 

2  Ad  q.  1,  p.  5. 
54 


426  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

apostolical  practice,  in  matters  indifferent  in  their  own  nature, 
had  the  force  of  a  law;  therefore,  they  who  assert,  that  they 
are  of  the  presbyterian  order,  as  well  as  those,  who  say,  that 
they  are, by  divine  right,  of  the  episcopalian,  seem  to  be  arguing 
from  the  ratio  of  things  opposed  in  character,  to  that  of  those 
which  are  common,  or  equally  lawful  to  either."^  And  there- 
fore asserts  that  the  form  of  government  must  be  determined, 
as  that  in  the  state  is,  according  to  the  suitableness  of  it  to  the 
state,  temper  and  condition  of  the  people  it  is  intended  for. 
The  last  is,  judicious  Amyraldus,  whom  one  deservedly  calls 
one  of  the  greatest  wits  of  this  age.  In  his  proposals  for  peace 
with  the  Z?</Aer«ns,  speaking  of  the  different  forms  of  church 
government  in  the  several  churches  of  the  Reformation,  he 
lays  down  this  for  a  foundation  of  union  among  the  se- 
veral churches.  "  Since,  therefore,  Christ  and  the  apostles 
wisely  settled  this,  it  belongs  to  all  particular  churches  to  be 
governed  by  their  pastors,  and  to  be  ruled  by  some  form, 
which  the  necessity  of  the  case  may  require.  But  what  that 
form  should  be,  whether  some  should  excel  others  in  authority 
or  not,  hath  neither  been  defined  by  the  nature  of  the  thing, 
nor  settled  by  Christ  or  the  apostles.  But  in  the  first  place, 
for  the  sake  of  peace,  it  seems  to  have  been,  thus  far,  resolved 
on,  that  after  whatever  law  the  pastors  of  evangelical  churches 
have  existed,  that  they  should  in  the  same  manner  proceed, 
but  that  no  one  should  endeavour  to  destroy  the  constitution 
of  others.  "2  "That  is,  that  every  church  be  permitted  freely 
to  enjoy  its  own  form,  since  some  kind  of  government  is  ne- 
cessary in  all  churches,  but  no  one  form  is  prescribed  by  Christ 
or  his  apostles;"  and  more  fully  afterwards  to  the  same  pur- 
pose :  "  Therefore,  in  whatever  manner  certain  forms  of 
church  government  seem  more  suitable  and  accommodating 
to  some,  to  obtain  that  discipline,  or  object  of  church  polity, 
nevertheless,  God,  who  is  the  author  and  guardian  of  all  so- 


'  Nee  apostolorum  praxim  i)uto  vim  habuisse  legis,  in  rebus  suS,  natiira 
a>ia(()ojoif.  Proinde  tarn  qui  presbyteralem,  quam  episeopalein  ordinein  juris 
divini  esse  asserunt,  videntur  ruf  a»9oXK>)f  a.  juirjia  rovfjttirov  Jia/wajTSiv. 

2  Quando  igitur  Christus  quidem  et  apostoli  hoc  disert6  constituerunt,  debere 
particulares  ecclesias  omncs  gubernari  h  pastoribus,  et  aliqua  rrgiminis  fnrma 
temperari,  quod  ipsa  rei  necessitas  flagitat;  quae  vero  reginiinis  isla  forma  potis- 
simtim  esse  debcat,  utrnm  alii  aliisauctoritute  prsecellant,  necne,  neque  rei  natura 
definivit,  neque  k  Christo  aut  apostolis  aeqne  disertd  constitutum  est;  id  primo  in 
piicifioatione  statuendum  esse  videtur,  ut  quo  jure  hactenns  fuernnt  ecclesiannn 
evangelicarnm  pastorcf^,  eodern  porro  esse  pergant,  neque  alia3  aliarum  statum 
convellere  nitantur, — De  secessione  ab  ecclesia,  Rom.  Deque  pace  cum  Evang. 
cons.  p.  29,  &c. 


FORMS  OP  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  42!7 

ciety,^  is  not  willing  that  all  congregations  should  be  held  by 
the  same  law,  but  he  willed  to  each  a  power  to  compose  laws 
for  itself,  which  he  sanctioned  by  his  own  authority.  Though 
there  is  no  doubt,  but  that  of  various  methods  of  church  go- 
vernment, some  are  more  conclusive  than  others  to  obtain  that 
which  religion  has  established  as  the  end;  nevertheless,  the 
most  wise  and  indulgent  Being  willed  that  each  church  should 
have  the  right  of  enacting  those  laws  for  itself,  which  have 
reference  to  discipline,  and  the  preservation  of  order."^ — 
Whereby  he  grants  "as  much  freedom  and  liberty  to  every 
church,  to  prescribe  laws  to  itself,  for  the  regulating  the  affairs 
of  the  church,  as  to  any  state  to  pitch  upon  its  particular  rules 
and  ways  of  government;  so  the  church  do  in  its  orders  but  ob- 
serve tlie  general  rules  laid  down  in  scripture."  Having  thus 
fully  showed  how  many  of  the  most  eminent  divines  of  the  re- 
formation have  embraced  this  opinion  of  tlie  mutability  of  the 
form  of  church  government,  both  in  our  own  and  foreign 
churches,  who  were  far  from  being  the  proselytes  of  Erastus; 
it  were  easy  to  add  Mantissse  loco  the  concurrent  judgment  of 
many  very  learned  men,  as  the  excellent  Hugo  Grotius,  my 
Lord  Bacon, ^  Sir  Will.  Morice,  and  others,  who  have  in  print 
delivered  this  as  their  judgment;  but  seeing  such  is  the  temper 
of  many,  as  to  cast  by  their  judgments  with  an  opinion  of  their 
partiality  towards  the  government  of  the  church;  I  have  there- 
fore contented  myself  with  the  judgment  of  divines,  most  of 
them  of  the  highest  rank  since  the  reformation:  whose  judg- 
ments certainly  will  be  sufficient  to  remove  that  prejudice, 
wherewith  this  opinion  hath  been  entertained  among  the  blind 
followers  of  the  several  parties.     So  much  for  those,  who  in 


'  Omnes  societatis,  "of  all  society,"  are  the  words  of  the  author.  That  God  is 
the  author  of  society  in  the  generic  sense  cannot  be  doubted;  yet  that  many  so- 
cieties exist  by  his  permissive  providence,  that  by  the  burning  of  their  own 
fingers,  they  may  teach  both  themselves,  and  the  world  at  large,  an  important 
lesson,  is  equally  clear. 

2  Quemadmodum  igitur  et  si  politiarum  forms  aliae  aliis  aptiores  ad  fincm 
ilium  politicum  obtinendum,  et  accommodatiores  esse  videntur,  Deus  tamen  qui 
omnis  societatis  auctor  est  atque  custos,  noluit  omnes  hominum  ccetus  eodem 
jure  teneri,  sed  cu'que  communitati  potestateni  esse  voluit  suas  leges  sibi  con- 
dcndi,  quas  ipse  divina  sua  nuctoritate  sancit;  sic  dubitandum  quidem  non  est 
quin  ex  variis  iilis  administrandarum  ecclesiarum  rationibus,  nonniillae  sint 
aiiquanto  quam  alise  conducibiliores  ad  eum  fincm  adipiscendum  quem  religio 
constitutum  habet:  At  voluit  tamen  sapientissimus  indulgentissimusque  Deus, 
cuiq;  ecclesiffi  jus  esse  sibi  leges  eas  ferendi  quae  ad  disciplinam  spectant,  et  ad 
ordinem  conservandum. — De  Imperio  summ.  Potest,  circa  sacra,  c.  11. 

3  Lord  Bacon  Considerat.  touching  Ch.  Govern.  Sir  Will.  Morice  of  the  Sacra- 
meni,  in  sect.  9.  Mr.  Pryn's  twelve  queries  to  the  Assembly. 


438  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

terras  assert  the  form  of  church  government  not  to  depend 
upon  an  unalterable  law,  but  to  be  left  to  the  prudence  and 
discretion  of  every  particular  church,  to  determine  it  according 
to  its  suitableness  to  the  state,  condition  and  temper  of  the 
people  whereof  it  consists,  and  conducibleness  to  the  ends 
for  which  it  is  instituted. 

§  6.  We  come  now  in  the  second  place  to  those,  who  though 
they  look  upon  equality  of  ministers  as  the  primitive  form,  yet 
do  allow  episcopal  government  in  the  church  as  a  very  lawful 
and  useful  constitution.  By  which  it  is  evident,  that  they  did 
not  judge  the  primitive  form  to  carry  an  universal  obligation 
along  with  it,  over  all  churches,  ages,  and  places.  Upon  this 
account,  our  learned  Crakanthorp  frees  all  the  reformed 
churches  from  the  charge  oi ^rianism,  laid  upon  them  by  the 
t^rchbishop  of  Spalato,  (when  he  licked  up  his  former  vomit 
in  his  Consilium  reditus.)  Crakanthorp^ s^  words  are  these, 
speaking  of  Luther,  Calvin,  Beza,  and  all  the  reformed 
churches:  "  They  have  not,  I  know,  bishops  distinct  from 
presbyters,  and  superior  to  them,  in  the  power  of  ordaining 
and  excommunicating.  But  they  teach  that  the  inequality, 
which  Arius  constituted,  is  not  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God. 
They  condemn  it  not,  either  in  our  church,  or  in  the  church 
universal  existing  now  for  more  than  fifteen  lumdred  years. 
They  judge  that  the  admission  of  either  equality  or  ine- 
quality in  orders,  is  lawful  and  free  by  the  word  and  law  of 
God.  In  short,  whether  to  sanction  equality  or  inequality, 
they  decide  to  be  in  the  judgment  and  power  of  each 
church. "2  So  that  according  to  the  opinion  of  this  learned 
divine,  all  the  reformed  churches  were  free  from  the  impu- 
tation of  ./^r^«;^^5?/^,  because  they  asserted  not  an  imparity 
among  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  to  be  unlawful;  but 
thought  it  was  wholly  in  the  church's  liberty,  to  settle  either 
a  parity  or  imparity  among  them,  as  they  judged  convenient. 
But  to  descend  more  particularly  to  the  heroes  of  the  re- 
formation: we  have  a  whole  constellation  of  them  together 
in  the  Augustane  Confession,^  where  they  fully  express  their 

'  Defens.  Eccles.  Angl.  cap.  42,  s.  6. 

2  Non  habent  illi,  scio,  distinctos  &,  presbytcris,  eisque  in  ordinandi  et  excom- 
municandi  pntestate  superioresepiscopos.  At  imparitatem  istain,quod  fecit  iErius, 
non  verbo  Dei  rcpugnare  decent;  tion  damnant  cam  vel  in  nostra,  vel  in  univer- 
sal! per  arinos  super  niille  quingenlos  ccclcsia.  Per  verbum  Dei  et  jus  divinum, 
liberutn  et  licituin  utrumvis  censent,  vel  imparitatem  istam  admittere  vel  parita- 
tein;  in  arbitrio  hoc  esse  ac  potestate  cujus  vis  ecclesiffi  censent,  utrum  paritatem 
ordinuin  admittant,  an  imparitatem. 

3  Apolog-.  Confess.  Aug.  ad.  art.  14. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  429 

minds  to  this  purpose:  "On  this  subject, and  in  this  convention, 
we  have  often  testified,  that  we,  with  all  our  heart,  desire  to 
preserve  the  ecclesiastical  polity,  and  the  orders  constituted  in 
the  church,  even  by  human  authority.  For  we  know  that 
the  ecclesiastical  discipline  hath  been  established  by  the 
fathers,  with  a  good  and  useful  design,  in  that  manner,  which 
the  ancient  canons  describe,"  And  afterwards,  "the  tyranny 
of  the  bishops  is  partly  the  reason,  why  that  canonical  polity 
is  dissolved  anywhere,  which  we  exceedingly  desire  to  pre- 
serve." And  again,  "  Here  also  we  willingly  testify,  that  we 
would  preserve  the  ecclesiastical  and  canonical  order  of  go- 
vernment, if  only  the  bishops  would  cease  to  tyrannize  over 
the  churches.  This  our  good  intention  shall  excuse  us  before 
our  God,  among  all  nations,  and  through  all  posterity,  lest  to 
us  it  should  be  imputed,  that  the  authority  of  bishops  has  been 
invalidated."  And  yet  further,  "  we  have  already  testified, 
that  we  not  only,  with  all  piety,  reverence  that  ecclesiastical 
power,  which  has  been  instituted  by  the  gospel,  but  even 
highly  approve  of  the  polity,  and  several  orders  in  the  church, 
and  as  far  as  in  us  lies,  desire  to  preserve  them."^  We  see 
with  what  industry  they  purge  and  clear  themselves  from  the 
imputation  of  bearing  any  ill  will  to  the  several  degrees  that 
were  instituted  by  the  church;  nay,  they  profess  themselves 
desirous  of  retaining  them,  so  the  bishops  would  not  force 
them  to  do  anything  against  their  consciences.  To  the  same 
purpose  they  speak  in  the  Smaraldian  articles.  None  speaks 
more  fully  of  the  agreeableness  of  the  form  of  government 
used  in  the  ages  after  the  apostles  to  the  Word  of  God,  than 
that  excellent  servant  of  God,  as  Bishop  Downam  often  calls 
him,  Calvin  doth:  for  in  liis  Institutions  he  speaks  thus  of  the 
polity  of  the  primitive  church;  "Although  the  bishops  of  those 
times  did  make  many  canons,  wherein  they  did  seem  to  ex- 

'  Hac  de  re  in  hoc  conventu  saepe  testati  sumus,  nos  summa  voluntate  cuperc, 
conservare  politiam  ecclesiasticam,  et  gradus  in  ecclesia  factos  etiam  hum  ana 
aiithoritate.  Scimus  enim  bono  et  utili  consilio  &,  patribus  ecclesiasticam  disci- 
plinara,  hoc  modo,  ut  veteres  canones  describunt,  constitutam  esse.  And  after- 
wards, Saevitia  episcoporum  in  causa  est,  quare  alicubi  dissolvitur  ilia  canonica 
politia,  quam  magnopere  cupiebamus  conservare.  And  again,  Hie  iterum 
volutnus  testatum,  nos  libent6r  conservaturos  esse  ecclesiasticam  et  canonicam 
politiam,  si  modo  episcopi  desinant  in  ecclesias  nostras  saevire.  Hjbc  nostra 
voluntas,  et  coram  Deo  et  apud  omnes  gentes  ad  omnem  posteritatem  excusabit 
nos,  n6  nobis  imputari  possit,  quod  episcoporuo)  authoritas  labefactetur.  And 
yet  further:  Saepe  jam  testati  sumus,  nos  non  solCim  potestatem  ecclesiasticam, 
quae  in  evangelio  instituta  est,  summa  pictate  venerari,  sed  etiam  ecclesiasticam 
politiam,  et  gradus  in  eccksia  magnopere  probare;  et,  quantdm  in  nobis  est,  con- 
servare cupere. — Confess.  August,  per  Chytr,  .365. 


430  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

press  more  than  was  in  the  word  of  God:  yet  they  used  such 
caution  and  prudence  in  the  estabUshing  the  church's  pohty 
according  to  the  word  of  God,  tliat  hardly  will  anything  be 
found  in  it  disagreeing  to  God's  Holy  Word."^  And  after- 
wards speaking  of  the  institution  of  archbishops  and  patri- 
archs, he  saith  it  was  ad  disciplinse  conservationem,  "  for 
preserving  the  church's  discipline;"  and  again,  "If  we  consider 
the  matter,  phraseology  omitted,  we  shall  find  that  the  ancient 
bishops  had  no  intention  to  devise  any  other  form  of  church 
government,  than  tliat  which  God  had  prescribed  in  his  word."^ 
Calvin  then,  whatever  form  of  government  he  judged  most 
suitable  to  the  state  and  temper  of  the  church  wherein  he  was 
placed,  was  far  from  condemning  that  polity  which  was  used 
in  the  primitive  church  by  a  difference  as  to  degrees  among 
the  ministers  of  the  gospel.  He  did  not  then  judge  any  form 
of  government  to  be  so  delivered  in  scriptures  as  unalterably 
to  oblige  all  churches  and  ages  to  observe  it.  Beza  saith, 
He  was  so  far  from  thinking  that  the  human  order  of  epis- 
copacy was  brought  into  the  church  through  rashness  or 
ambition,  that  none  can  deny  it  to  have  been  very  useful  as 
long  as  bishops  were  good.  And  those  that  both  will  andean, 
let  them  enjoy  it  still.  His  words  are  these:  "  But  far  be  it 
from  me,  that  I  should  rashly  censure,  or  haughtily  inveigh 
against  this  order,  though  not  constituted  by  intention  ab- 
stractedly divine,  is  yet  apostolical;  especially  whilst  none  can 
deny  that  its  advantage  has  been  great,  so  long  as  good  and 
holy  bishops  presided.  Therefore  let  those  who  will  and  can, 
enjoy  it."^  And  elsewhere,"*  "professeth  all  reverence,  esteem, 
and  honour  to  be  due  to  all  such  modern  bishops,  who  strive 
to  imitate  the  example  of  the  primitive  bishops  in  a  due  refor- 
mation of  the  church  of  God,  according  to  the  rule  of  the 
word.    And  looks  on  it  as  a  most  false  and  impudent  calumny 

•  Tumi  tsi  enim  tnultos  canones  ediderunt  illorurn  temporum  episcopi  quibus 
plus  viderentur  cxprimere  quam  sacris  Uteris  expressuni  esset;  ea  tamen  cautione 
totam  suam  oeconomiam  composuerunt  ad  unicam  illam  verbi  Dei  norinam,  ut 
facild  videas  nihil  fer6  hac  parte  Iiabuisse  a.  verbo  Dei  alienum. — Inslitut.  lib.  4, 
cap.  4,  sect.  I. 

2  Si  rem  omisso  vocabulo  intuemur,  reperiemus  veteres  episcopos  non  aliarn 
regendsE  eeclesiaB  formam  voluisse  fingere,  ab  ea  quam  deus  verbo  suo  prae- 
scrip.sit. — Sect.  4. 

3  Absit  autem,  ut  liunc  ordinem,  et  si  apostolica  et  mere  divina  dispositionc 
non  constitutam,  lamcn  ut  temere  aut  superbe  invectutn  reprehendam;  cujus 
potius  magnum  usum  fuisse  quamdiu  boni  et  sancti  episcopi  ecclesiis  prsefuerunt, 
quis  inficiari  possit?     Fruantur  igitur  illo  qui  volent  et  poterunt. — De  Ministr. 

-gradibus,  cap.  2.3,  p.  144. 
MJap.  21,  p  126,  127. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  431 

of  some  that  said,as  though  they  intended  to  prescribe  their  form 
of  government  to  all  other  churches;  as  thougli  they  were  Uke 
some  ignorant  fellows  who  think  nothing  good  but  what  they 
do  themselves."  How  this  is  reconcilable  with  the  novel  pre- 
tence of  3.  jus  divinutn,  I  cannot  understand.  For  certainly,  if 
Beza  had  judged  that  only  form  to  be  prescribed  in  the  word 
wliich  was  used  in  Geneva,  it  had  been  but  his  duty  to  have 
desired  all  other  churches  to  conform  to  that.  Neither  ought 
Beza  then  to  be  looked  on  as  out-going  his  master  Calvin  in  the 
opinion  about  the  right  of  church  government.  For  we  see 
he  goes  no  further  in  it  than  Calvin  did.  All  that  either  of 
them  maintained,  was,  that  the  form  of  government  in  use 
among  them  was  more  agreeable  to  the  primitive  form  than 
the  modern  episcopacy  was,  and  that  episcopacy  lay  more 
open  to  pride,  laziness,  ambition,  and  tyranny,  as  tht-y  had 
seen  and  felt  in  the  church  of  Rome.  Therefore,  not  to  give 
occasion  to  such  encroachments  upon  the  liberty  of  men's  con- 
sciences, as  were  introduced  by  the  tyranny  of  the  Roman 
bishops,  they  thought  it  the  safest  way  to  reduce  the  primitive 
parity;  but  yet  so  as  to  have  an  ecclesiastical  senate  for  one 
church  containing  city  and  territories,  as  is  evident  at  Geneva, 
and  that  senate  to  have  a  president  in  it;  and  whether  that 
president  should  be  for  life,  or  only  by  course,  they  judged  it 
an  accidental  and  mutable  thing:  but  that  there  should  be  one, 
essential  and  necessary.  This  is  expressly  and  fully  the  judg- 
ment of  that  most  reverend  and  learned  man  Th.  Beza,  as  he 
declares  it  himself.  "In  this  matter,  concerning  which  we 
speak,  it  was  an  attribute  essential,  which  was,  is,  and  ne- 
cessarily will  be  permanently  of  divine  administration,  that  in 
the  presbytery,  one,  the  first  both  in  office  and  dignity,  should, 
in  the  act  of  governing,  preside;  especially  since  to  him  it  is 
awarded  as  a  matter  of  divine  authority.  But  it  was  a  pro- 
perty ACCIDENTAL,^  that  prcsbytcrs,  in  a  government  wherein 
one  is  pre-eminent,  should,  from  the  beginning,  succeed  one 
another  by  rotation,  which  method  of  single  pre-eminency," 
(i.  e.  limited  to  some  one  only  of  a  succession  by  rotation,) 
"by  degrees  became  changeable,  so  that  any  individual  chosen 
by  the  judgment  of  his  fellow  presbyters  should  be  for  life 
president  over  the  presbytery. "^     It  will  be  worth  our  while 


'  For  the  difference  between  an  essential  attribute  and  an  accidental  property 
of  any  being,  see  any  good  System  of  Ontology,  or  a  Treatise  on  Logic. 

2  Esseiitiuie  fuit  in  eo  de  quo  hie  .igimus,  quod  ex  dei  ordinatione  perpetua 
nccesse  fuit,  est,  et  erit,  ut  in  presbytcrio  quispiam  et  loco  et  dignitate  primus 


432  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

truly  to  state  the  question  of  church  government  between  the 
church  of  England,  and  that  of  Geneva  in  the  time  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,  and  thereby  we  shall  see  how  small  the  difference 
was  between  them.  That  the  churches  in  the  primitive  times 
did  take  in  the  Christians  in  whole  cities  and  adjoining  terri- 
tories, is  acknowledged  on  both  sides;  Calvin  and  Beza  being 
both  express  in  it,  and  the  constitution  of  the  church  of  Ge- 
neva speaks  as  much,  "  To  each  city,"  saith  Calvin,  "  there 
was  assigned  a  certain  region,  which  might  from  thence  take 
its  presbytery,  and  they  be  added  to  the  body  of  its  church." — 
"In  the  principal  town  of  each  diocess,"  saith  Beza,  "  the  first 
presbyter  presided,  every  day,  in  the  common  jurisdiction,  as 
well  over  the  rest  of  his  fellow  presbyters  of  the  city,  as  over 
those  of  the  whole  diocess."^  That  the  government  of  the 
city  did  take  in  the  city  and  territories,  is  likewise  acknow- 
ledged by  them.  That  for  more  convenient  order,  there  was 
one  to  preside  over  the  ecclesiastical  senate,  is  confessed  as 
essential  by  Beza;  and  Calvin  acknowledged  that  even  in 
apostolical  times,  "  there  was  no  such  equality  among  the 
ministers  of  the  church,  but  that  some  one  was  over  the  rest 
in  authority  and  counsel. "^  Wherein  then  lay  the  difference? 
For  we  have  already  seen  that  our  great  divines  then  did  not 
look  upon  their  form  of  government  as  necessary,  but  only  law- 
ful; and  Calvin  and  Beza  would  not  be  thought  to  prescribe 
their  form  to  other  churches.  All  the  difference  then  was,  not 
whether  their  form  of  government  was  founded  on  divine 
right;  not  whether  episcopacy  in  the  church  was  lawful  or  not; 
not  whether  diocesan  churches  were  unlawful,  or  whether 
every  congregation  should  have  an  ecclesiastical  senate;  but 
whether  it  were  more  agreeable  to  the  primitive  form,  that 
the  president  of  the  ecclesiastical  senate  should  have  only  an 
order  among,  or  a  degree  above  the  senate  itself.  But  chiefly 
it  was,  whether  in  the  present  state  of  the  reformed  churches  it 


action!  gubernandaB  prcesit,  cum  eo  quod  ipsi  divinitus  attributum  est  jure.  Ac- 
cidentale  autem  fuit,  quod  presbyteri  in  hac  ■n^o^a.a-ia.  alii  aliis  per  vices  initio 
succedebant;  qui  w^orairtaf  modus  paulatim  postea  visus  est  niutandus,  ut  unus 
quispiam  judicio  CBeterorum  compresbyterorum  delectus,  presbyterio  wfoso-Tiwf 
esset,  et  permaneret.— De  Ministr.  grudibus,  cap.  23,  p.  1.53. — 1  Rom.  xiii.  1  to 5. 

1  Unicuique  civitali  (saith  Calvin)  erat  attributa  certa  regio;  qusB  presbyteroa 
inde  sumeret,  et  velut  corpori  ecclesise  illius  accensercntur.  In  oppido  cujusque 
diceceseos  (saith  Beza)  prEecipno,  primus  presbyter,  &c.,  in  quolidiana  conimuni 
jurisdictione  preeerat  cseteris  tum  urbanis,  turn  aliis  ejus  regioniscompresbyteris, 
i.  e.  toti  dioecesi. — Instit.  1.  4,  c.  4,  s.  2.  De  Ministr.  grad.  cap.  24,  p.  167. 

2  Non  earn  fuisse  tunc  equalitatem  inter  ecclesise  ministros,  quin  unus  aliquis 
authoritate  et  consilio  prseesset. — N.  Tit.  1,  5. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  433 

were  moro  convenient  wholly  to  lay  aside  the  form  of  govern- 
ment by  bishops,  which  had  been  so  much  abused  in  the  Ro- 
man church,  and  to  reduce  all  ministers  of  the  gospel  to  an 
equality  with  only  a  presidency  of  order,  thereby  to  free  them- 
selves from  the  imputation  of  ambition,  and  to  prevent  it  in 
others;  or  else  it  were  more  prudent  only  to  retrench  the 
abuses  of  episcopacy  under  the  papacy,  and  to  reduce  it  to 
that  form  wherein  it  was  practised  in  the  church,  before  the 
tyranny  and  usurpation  of  the  Roman  bishop  had  engrossed 
all  ecclesiastical poiuer  into  his  own  hands?  The  former  part 
was  embraced  generally  by  the  reformed  churches,  the  latter 
by  our  church  of  England,  so  that  the  question  was  not 
about  divine  right,  but  about  a  matter  of  prudence;  not  what 
form  was  settled  by  a  law  of  Christ,  but  what  form  was  suit- 
able to  the  present  state  of  the  churches  of  the  reformation. 
Therefore  we  see  none  of  these  foreign  divines  did  charge 
the  government  of  this  church  with  unlawfulness,  but  incon- 
veniency,  as  it  was  a  step  to  pride  and  ambition,  and  an  occa- 
sion whereby  men  might  do  the  church  injury  by  the  excess 
of  their  power,  if  they  were  not  men  of  an  excellent  temper 
and  moderation.  Thence  that  prediction  of  Padre  Paulo, 
that  the  church  of  England  would  then  find  the  inconve- 
niency  of  episcopacy,  when  a  high  spirited  bishop  should 
once  come  to  rule  that  church;  and  so  Beza  when  he  had 
freed  the  bishops  of  the  reformation  from  that  imputation  of 
lording  it  over  their  brethren,  with  which  he  had  charged 
the  Roman  bishops,  yet  he  adds,  that  he  would  beg  them 
rather  to  lay  down  their  power  than  to  transmit  that  power 
to  those  after  them,  "Who  it  may  be  were  not  likti  to  succeed 
them  in  their  meekness  and  moderation."^  What  just  reason 
there  was  for  such  fears,  or  may  be  still,  let  those  judge  who 
are  fittest  to  do  it;  those  I  mean  who  have  the  power  not  only 
to  redress,  but  prevent  abuses  encroaching  by  an  irregular 
power.  It  was  not  then  any  unlawfulness  in  the  government 
of  episcopacy  itself,  but  its  liability  to  abuse,  which  made  the 
reformed  churches  reduce  modern  episcopacy  into  a  mere 
presidency  of  order,  which  was  not  so  liable.  A  clear  evi- 
dence that  they  judged  not  the  government  unlawful,  is,  their 
frequent  profession  of  a  ready  and  cheerful  obedience  to 
bishops,  if  they  would  embrace  the  gospel,  and  stand  up  in 
defence  of  the  true  doctrine.     For  which  we  have  the  testi- 


'  Hanc  ipsorum  moderalionem  et  eequitatetn  minime  forsan  sequuturi. — De 
Minislr.  grad.  p.  158. 
55 


434  THE  DIVINK  RIGHT  OF 

mony  of  George  Prince  of  Anhalt,  in  the  preface  to  his 
sermon  on  false  prophets,  speaking  of  bishops  and  arch- 
bishops. "We  conld  wish,  that  as  they  have  the  names,  and 
enjoy  the  benefices,  that  they  would  so  in  reality,  make  good 
that  they  are  bishops  to  the  church.  We  could  wish  that  they 
would  teach  what  is  agreeable  to  the  gospel,  and  that  they 
would  faithfully  rule  the  church  according  to  the  same,  O 
how  willingly,  with  what  a  joy  of  heart  should  we  account 
them  bishops,  should  we  reverence,  obey,  assign  the  jurisdic- 
tion and  clerical  rank  due  to  them,  and  freely  rejoice  in  these 
things.  This  very  thing,  we  always,  and  Luther  frequently, 
both  orally,  by  writing,  and  by  attestation  before  public  wit- 
nesses in  the  cathedral  church  of  Marburg,  have  promised.'" 
To  the  same  purpose  Melancihon  writing  to  Camerarius:^ 
"By  wliat  right  or  law  may  we  dissolve  the  ecclesiastical 
polity,  if  the  bishops  will  grant  us  that  which  in  reason  they 
ought  to  grant?  and  though  it  were  lawful  for  us  so  to  do, 
yet  surely  it  were  not  expedient.  Luther  was  ever  of  this 
opinion."  The  same  is  professed  by  Calvin, and  that  accord- 
ing to  his  temper  in  a  higher  manner:  "But  verily,  if  they 
would  grant  to  us  a  hierarchy,  in  which  bishops  should  take 
the  pre  eminence,  so  that  they  refuse  not  to  be  subject  to 
Christ,  depend  on  Him  as  their  only  head,  and  may  be  re- 
ferred to  Him  only,  in  which  if  they  cultivate  brotherly 
charity  among  themselves,  ai.d  are  bound  togellior  in  no 
other  manner  but  by  his  truth;  then,  if  there  can  be  any  who 
shall  not  reverently,  and  with  all  obedience,  pay  submission 
to  that,  (hierarchy,  or  church  polity  of  episcopal  suprenmcy,) 
we  confess,  that  there  is  no  anathema  of  which  they  will  not 
be  worthy."^  Jacobus  Heerhrandus,  divinity  professor  at 
Tubinge,  professeth  it  to  be  "the  most  sound  constitution  of 
church  government,  wherein  every  diocess  had  its  bishop,  and 

'  Ulinam  sicut  nomina  geriuit  et  titulos,  ita  se  reipsa  prsBstareiit  cpiscojjos 
ecelesise.  Utinam  evungelio  docerent  consonti,  ipsoque  ccclcsias  fidelitcr  rcgc^- 
rent.  O  quam  libenter,  quantaque  cum  cordis  laetitia,  pro  episco[)is  ipsus  hab(?rc, 
revereri,  morem  gerere,  debitam  jurisdictionem,  et  ordinationcm  eis  tnbucrc, 
eaque  sine  recusatione  frui  vellemus:  id  quod  nos  semper,  et  D.  Lutiierus  ctiam 
saepissime  tarn  ore  quam  scriptis,  inio  et  in  concionc  publica  in  catliedrali 
temple  Marburgcnsi  contestali  proniisimus. — Super.  Mas.  tit.  de  Ordinat. 

2  Ep.  ad  CiBiner.  A.  D.  1530. 

3  Verum  autem  nobis  si  oontribuatit  hierarchiam  in  qua  emineant  episcopi,  ut 
Christo  subcsse  non  recusent,  ut  ab  illo  tanquam  ab  unico  eapite  pcndtant,  et  ad 
ipsum  referantur,  in  qua  si  fralernam  charitatem  inter  se  cnlant,  et  non  alio 
modo  quam  ejus  veritate  colligati,  turn  vero  nullo  non  anatbemate  digiios  fatomur, 
si  qui  erunt,  qui  earn  non  reverenter  et  summa  cum  obcdientia  obscrvent. — Tom. 
7,  ad  Sadoietum,  et  de  neces.  Reform.  Eccl.  p.  69. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  435 

every  province  an  archbishop,"^  Hemingius  acknowiedgeth 
a  disparity  among  church  officers,  and  accounts  it  a  piece  of 
barbarism  to  remove  it.  "For  although  the  power  of  ail 
miiiisters  is  the  same,  so  far  as  it  refers  to  spiritual  jurisdic- 
tion; yet  the  orders  and  degrees  of  dignity  are  not  equal,  and 
that  partly  of  divine  right,  and  partly  by  the  approbation  of 
the  church."^  But  he  qualifies  what  he  had  said  of  Jus 
divinum  by  his  following  words:  "The  church  to  which  the 
Lord  hath  given  the  power,  has  for  its  edification  and  advan- 
tage, instituted  an  order  of  ministry,  so  that  all  things  might 
be  rightly  ordained  for  the  renewal  of  the  body  of  Clirist. 
Hence  a  purer  church  followed  apostolical  times;^  He  made 
some  patriarchs,  some  rural  bishops,'*  some  pastors,  and 
others  expounders." — And  afterwards,  "amongst  ministers, 
our  church  acknowledges  degrees  of  dignity  and  order,  ac- 
cording to  the  variety  of  their  gifts,  the  greatness  of  their 
labours,  and  diversity  of  their  callings;  and  he,  { Hemingius,) 
judges,  that  the  mind  that  would  take  away  this  order  from 
the  church,  is  heathenish."^  Three  things  he  placeth  a 
superiority  of  dignity  in;  excellency  of  gifts;  greatness 
of  labours,  difference  of  calling.  •  And  the  truth  is,  the  two 
former  ought  to  be  the  measure  of  dignity  in  the  church,  the 
eminency  of  men's  abilities,  and  the  abundance  of  their 
labours  above  others.  The  necessity  of  a  superintendent,  or 
an  inspector  over  other  ministers,  is  largely  discovered  by 

'  Salubcnimuin  esset  si  singulse  pruvincije  suos  episcopos,  et  episcopi  suos 
archiepiscopos  liaberent. — In  loc.  com.  de  Eccl.  p.  767. 

2  duanquam  cnim  potestas  omnium  eadem  est  ministrorum,  quantum  ad 
spiritualoin  jurisdictionem  attinet;  tamen  dispares  dignitatis  ordines  et  gradus 
sunt;  idq;  partim  jure  divino,  partim  ecclesia)  approbatione. — Opuscul.  Theol. 
Clas.  3,cap.  10,  p.  439. 

3  Wliat  Hemingius  here  means  demands  inquiry.  For  liow  could  there  be  a 
more  holy,  and  consequently  moral  church,  than  on  and  immediately  after  the 
pentecost. — (Acts  ii.)  This  secured  purity  in  its  most  intrinsic  and  essential 
character.  But  if  by  the  term  "  purer,"  he  refers  to  something  of  comparatively 
secondary  consequence,  to  externals,  as  a  more  exact  and  orderly  discipline,  he 
is  not  the  most  happy  in  the  selection  of  his  epitliet.  Let  only  the  sap,  (which 
is  internal.)  of  tlic  tree  be  pure  and  plentiful,  all  the  externals,  the  leaves,  blos- 
soms, flowers  and  fruit,  will  come  out  in  due  season,  and  that  in  beauty,  order, 
and  abundance. — Am.  Ed. 

"*  XajjETTio-xoTref,  a  country  bishop,  or  generally,  a  bishop  not  a  metropolitan. 

fi  Ecelesia  cui  Dominus  potestatem  dedit  in  aedificutionem,  ordinem  minis- 
trorum instituit  pro  commodo  suo,  ut  omnia  sint  rite  ordinata  ad  instaurationem 
corporis  Christi.  Hinc  ecelesia  purior  secuta  tempera  apostolorum,  fecit  alios 
patriarchas,  alios  Chorepiscopos,  alios  pastores  et  catechetas;  and  afterwards. 
Inter  miiiistros  agnoscit  etiam  ecelesia  nostra  gradus  dignitatis,  et  ordines  pro 
diversilate  donorum,  l.iborum  magnitudine,  ac  vocationuni  diversitate;  ac  judical, 
barbaricuin  esse  dc  ecelesia  hunc  ordinem  tollere  vcllc. 


436  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

Zepper  de  Politeia  Ecclesiastica^^  who  likewise  agrees  with 
the  former  divines  in  his  judgment  of  the  first  institution  of 
episcopacy:  "  The  same  offices  remained  in  use  in  the  primi- 
tive church,  after  the  apostles'  times,  a  few  gradations  being 
added,  according  to  the  necessity  of  the  times,  which  never- 
theless had  nothing  at  variance  with  the  mind  of  Paul,  or  the 
word  of  God. "2  Whereby  he  both  asserts  it  to  be  in  the 
power  of  the  church  to  add  distinct  degrees  from  what  were 
in  the  primitive  church,  and  that  such  so  added,  are  no  ways 
repugnant  to  the  word  of  God.  According  to  this  judgment  of 
their  divines  is  the  practice  of  the  foreign  protestant  churches. 
In  Sweden  there  is  one  archbishop,  and  seven  bishops:  and 
so  in  Denmark,  though  not  with  so  great  authority  in  Hol- 
stein,  Pomerania,  Mecklenburgh,  Brunswick,  Luneburgh,  Bre- 
men, Oldenburgh,  East  Frieseland,  Hessen,  Saxony,^  and  all 
the  upper  part  of  Germany  and  the  protestant  imperial  cities, 
church  government  is  in  the  hands  of  superi7iiendenis.  la 
the  Palatinate  they  had  iiispectors  B.nd  pnepositi,  over  which 
was  the  ecclesiastical  consistory  of  three  clergymen,  and  three 
counsellors  of  state  with  their  president:  and  so  they  have 
their  praspositi  in  Wetteraw,  Hessen,  and  Anhalt.  In  Tran- 
sylvania, Polonia,  and  Bohemia,  they  have  their  seniores 
enjoying  the  same  power  with  ancient  bishops.  So  that  we 
see  all  these  reformed  churches  and  diviiies,  although  they 
acknowledge  no  such  thing  as  a  divine  right  of  episcopacy, 
but  stiffly  maintain  Jerome's  opinion  of  the  primitive  equality 
of  gospel  ministers;  yet  they  are  so  far  from  accounting  it  un- 
lawful to  have  some  church  officers  acting  in  a  higher  degree 
above  others,  that  they  themselves  embrace  it  under  different 
names  and  tities,  in  order  to  the  peace,  unity,  and  government 
of  their  several  churches:  whereby  they  give  us  an  evident 
demonstration  that  they  looked  not  upon  the  primitive  form 
to  be  immutable,  but  that  the  orders  and  degrees  of  ministers 
is  ouly  a  prudential  thing,  and  left  in  the  liberty  of  every  par- 
ticular church,  to  be  determined  according  to  their  tendency 
to  preserve  the  peace  and  settlement  of  a  church. 

§  7.  We  come  in  the  last  place  to  those  who  hold  episco- 
pacy to  be  the  primitive  form,  yet  not  unalterably  binding  all 

'  Lib.  1,  c.  10. 

2  Eadem  ofRcia  in  primiliva  etiam  ecclesia,  post  apostolorum  tempora  in  usu 
manserunt,  paucis  quibusdam  gradibus,  pro  iilorum  temporum  necessitate  additis, 
qui  turnen  nihil  fcrc  i  niente  Pauli  et  verbi  divini  alienum  hubuerunt. — De  Polit. 
Ecclus.  1.  2,  cap.  1, 

3  See  Ml-.  Duree's  Government  of  Protestant  Churciics  beyond  tiie  Seas. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  437 

churches  and  places,  but  that  those  churches  who  are  without 
it,  are  truly  constituted  churches;  and  ministers  are  lawfully 
ordained  by  mere  presbyters.  This  is  largely  proved  by  Mr. 
Francis  Maso?i,  in  his  excellent  Defence  of  the  Ordination  of 
Ministers  beyond  the  Seasi^  to  which  I  refer  the  reader.  Only 
I  shall  show  out  of  him  how  the  state  of  the  question  about 
the  Jics  divinum  of  episcopacy  is  formed.  First,  If  by  jure 
divino  you  mean  that  which  is  according  to  scripture,  then 
the  pre-eminence  of  bishops  is  jure  divino;  for  it  hath  been 
already  proved  to  be  according  to  scripture.  Secondly,  If  by 
jure  divino  you  mean  the  ordinance  of  God,  in  this  sense  also 
it  may  be  said  to  be  jure  divino.  For  it  is  an  ordinance  of 
the  apostles,  whereunto  they  were  directed  by  God's  spirit, 
even  by  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  and  consequently  the  ordinance 
of  God.  But  if  hY  jure  divino  you  understand  a  law  and  com- 
mandment of  God,  binding  all  Christian  churches  universally, 
perpetually,  unchangeably,  and  with  such  absolute  necessity 
that  no  other  form  of  discipline  may  in  any  case  be  admitted; 
in  this  sense  neither  may  we  grant  it,  nor  yet  can  you  prove 
it  to  be  jure  divino. 

Whereby  we  see  this  learned  and  moderate  man  was  far 
from  unchurching  all  who  wanted  bishops;  and  absolutely 
declares,  that  though  he  looks  on  episcopacy  as  an  apostolical 
institution,  yet  that  no  unalterable  divine  right  is  founded  there- 
upon. So  before  him  the  both  learned  and  pious  bishop  G. 
Z)o^^;n^«m2  explains  himself  concerning  the  right  oi  episcopacy , 
in  these  remarkable  words:  "Though  in  respect  of  the  first  in- 
stitution, there  is  small  difference  between  an  apostolical  and 
divine  ordinance,  because  what  was  ordained  by  the  apostles, 
proceeded  from  God,  (in  which  sense,  and  no  other, I  do  hold  the 
episcopal  function  to  be  a  divine  ordinance,  I  mean  in  respect.of 
the  first  institution,)  yet  in  respect  of  perpetuity,  difference  by 
some  is  made  between  those  things  which  be  divini,  and  those 
which  be  aposiolici  juris;  the  former  in  their  understanding 
being  perpetually,  generally,  and  immutably  necessary;  the 
latter  not  so.  So  that  the  meaning  of  my  defence  plainly  is, 
that  the  episcopal  government  hath  this  commendation  above 
other  forms  of  ecclesiastical  government,  that  in  respect  of  the 
first  institution,  it  is  a  divine  ordinance;  but  that  it  should  be 
such  a  divine  ordinance  as  should  be  generally,  perpetually, 
immutably, necessarily  observed,so  as  no  other  form  of  govern- 

'  Certain  brief  Treatises,  &c.  Oxford,  16'11,  sect.  18. 
2  Defence  of  Sermon,  1.  4,  cap.  6,  p.  139. 


438  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

mentmay  in  no  case  be  admitted,  I  did  not  take  upon  me  to  main- 
tain."^ With  more  to  tlie  same  purpose  in  several  places  of  that 
defence.  And  from  hence  it  is  acknowledged  by  the  stoutest 
champions  for  episcopacy,  before  these  late  unhappy  divisions, 

THAT    OKDINATION   PERFORMED    BY  PRESBYTERS,    IN    CASES    OF 

NECESSITY,  IS  VALID;  which  I  have  already  shown  doth  evi- 
dently prove  that  episcopal  government  is  not  founded  upon 
any  unalterable  divine  right.^  So  much  may  suffice  to  show 
that  both  those  who  hold  an  equality  among  ministers  to  be 
the  apostolical  form,  and  those  that  do  hold  episcopacy  to 
have  been  it,  do  yet  both  agree  at  last  in  this;  that  no  one 
form  is  settled  by  an  unalterable  law  of  Christ,  nor  conse- 
quently founded  on  divine  right.  For  the  former,  notwith- 
standing their  opinion  of  the  primitive  form,  do  hold  episco- 
pacy lawful;  and  the  latter,  who  hold  episcopacy  to  have 
been  the  primitive  form,  do  not  hold  it  perpetually  and  im- 
mutably necessary,  but  that  presbyters,  (where  bishops  cannot 
be  had,)  may  lawfully  discharge  the  offices  belonging  to 
bishops;  both  which  concessions  do  necessarily  destroy  the 
perpetual  divine  right  of  that  form  of  government  they  assert: 
which  is  the  thing  I  have  been  so  long  in  proving,  and  I  hope 
made  it  evident  to  any  unprejudiced  mind. 

§  8.  Having  laid  down  this  now  as  a  sure  foundation  for 
peace  and  union,  it  were  a  very  easy  matter  to  improve  it,  in 
order  to  an  accommodation  of  our  present  differences  about 
church  government.  I  shall  only  lay  down  three  general 
principles  deducible  from  hence,  and  leave  the  whole  to  the 
mature  consideration  of  the  lovers  of  truth  and  peace.  The 
first  principle  is,  that  prudence  must  be  used  in  settling  the 
government  of  the  church.  This  hath  been  the  whole  de- 
sign of  this  treatise,  to  prove  that  the  form  of  church  govern- 
ment is  a  mere  matter  of  prudence,  regulated  by  the  word  of 
God.  But  I  need  not  insist  on  the  arguments  already  brought 
to  prove  it;  for,  as  far  as  I  can  find,  although  the  several  par- 
ties in  their  contentions  with  one  another  plead  for  divine 
right;  yet  when  any  one  of  them  comes  to  settle  their  own 

'  L  4,  ch.  7,  p.  146. 

2  For  wliicl)  purpose  many  evidences  arc  produced  from  Dr.  Field,  of  the 
churclr,  lib.  3,  c.  39;  B.  Downam,  1.  3,  c.  4;  B.  Jewel,  P.  2,  p.  131;  Saravia. 
cap.  3,  p.  10,  11;  B.  Alley,  Prajlect.  3  and  6;  B.  Pilkinton,  B.  Bridges,  B.  Bil- 
son,  D.  Newel,  B.  Davcnant,  B.  Prideaux,  B.  Andrews,  and  olhers:  by  our 
reverend  and  learned  M.  Baxter,  in  his  Christian  Concord;  to  whom  may  be 
added  the  late  most  reverend  and  eminent  the  bishop  of  Durham,  Apolog-.  Ca- 
thol.  p  1,  1.  I,  c.  21,  and  tiic  primate  of  Armagh,  whose  judgment  is  well  known 
as  to  (he  [K)int  of  ordination. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  439 

particular  form,  they  are  fain  to  call  in  the  help  of  prudence, 
even  in  things  supposed  by  the  several  parties  as  necessary  to 
the  establishment  of  their  own  form.  The  congregational 
men  may  despair  of  ever  tinding  elective  synods,  an  explicit 
church  covenant,  or  positive  signs  of  grace  in  admission  of 
church  members  in  any  law  of  Christ:  nay,  they  will  not 
generally  plead  for  any  more  of  them,  than  general  rules  of 
scripture,  fine  similitudes,  and  analogies,  and  evidence  of  na- 
tural reason;  and  what  are  all  these  at  last  to  an  express  law 
of  Christ,  without  which  it  was  pretended  nothing  was  to  be 
done  in  the  church  of  God?  The  presbyterians  seem  more 
generally  to  own  the  use  of  general  rules,  and  the  light  of 
nature,  in  order  to  the  form  of  church  government,  as  in  the 
subordination  of  courts,  classical  assemblies;  and  the  more 
moderate  sort,  as  to  lay-elders.  The  episcopal  meti  will 
iiardly  find  any  evidence  in  scripture,  or  the  practice  of  the 
apostles,  for  churches,  consisting  of  many  fixed  congregations 
for  worship,  under  the  charge  of  one  person;  nor  in  the 
primitive  church,  for  the  ordination  of  a  bishop  without  the 
preceding  election  of  tlie  clergy,  and  at  least  consent  and  ap- 
probation of  the  people ;  and  neither  in  scripture,  nor  an- 
tiquity, the  least  footstep  of  a  delegation  of  church  power. 
So  that  upon  the  matter  at  last,  all  of  them  make  use  of  those 
things  in  church  government,  which  have  no  other  foundation 
but  the  principles  of  human  prudence,  guided  by  the  scrip- 
tures; and  it  were  well  if  that  were  observed  still.  The 
second  principle  is,  that  form  of  government  is  the  best  ac- 
cording to  principles  of  Christian  prudence,  which  cornes  the 
nearest  to  apostolical  practice, and  tends  most  to  the  advancing 
the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church  of  God.  What  that  form  is, 
I  presume  not  to  define  and  determine,  but  leave  it  to  be  ga- 
thered from  the  evidence  of  scripture  and  antiquity,  as  to  the 
primitive  practice;  and  from  the  nature,  state  and  condition 
of  that  church  wherein  it  is  to  be  settled,  as  to  its  tendency  to 
the  advancement  of  peace  and  unity  in  it.  In  order  to  the 
finding  out  of  which,  that  proposal  of  his  late  most  excellent 
majesty  of  glorious  memory,is  most  highly  just  and  reasonable. 
^^  His  majesty  thinketh  it  ivell  worthy  the  studies  and  en- 
deavours of  divi?ies  of  both  opinions,  laying  aside  emula- 
tion and  private  interests,  to  reduce  episcopacy  and  presby- 
teries into  such  a  well-proportioned,  form  of  superiority 
and  subordination,  as  may  best  resemble  the  apostolical  and 
primitive  times,  so  far  forth  as  the  different  condition  of  the 


440  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OP 

times,  and  the  exigencies  of  all  considerable  circumstances 
will  admit."^ 

If  this  proposal  be  embraced,  as  there  is  no  reason  why  it 
should  not;  then,  all  such  things  must  be  retrieved  which  were 
unquestionably  of  the  primitive  practice,  but  have  been  grown 
out  of  use  through  the  length  and  corruption  of  times.  Such 
are  the  restoring'  of  the  presbyteries  of  several  churches,  as 
the  senate  to  the  bishop,  with  whose  counsel  and  advice  all 
things  were  done  in  the  primitive  church.  The  contracting 
of  diocesses  into  such  a  compass  as  may  be  fitted  for  the  per- 
sonal inspection  of  the  bishop,  and  care  of  himself  and  the 
senate;  the  placing  of  bishops  in  all  great  towns  of  resort, 
especially  county  towns;  that  according  to  the  ancient  course 
of  the  church,  its  govenuiient  may  be  proportioned  to  the 
civil  government.^  The  constant  preaching  of  the  bishop  in 
some  churches  of  his  charge,  and  residence  in  his  diocess;  the 
solemnity  of  ordinations,  with  the  consent  of  the  people;  the 
observing  provincial  synods  twice  every  year.  The  employing 
of  none  in  judging  church  matters  but  the  clergy.  These  are. 
things  unquestionably  of  the  primitive  practice,  and  no  argu- 
ment can  be  drawn  from  the  present  state  of  things,  why  they 
are  not  as  much,  if  not  more  necessary  than  ever.  And  there- 
fore all  who  appeal  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church, 
must  condemn  themselves,  if  they  justify  the  neglect  of  them. 
But  I  only  touch  at  these  things,  my  design  being  only  to  lay 
a  foundation  for  a  happy  union.  Lastly,  What  form  of  go- 
vernment is  determined  by  laivful  authority  in  the  church 
of  God,  ought  so  far  to  be  submitted  to,  as  it  contains  no- 
thing repugnant  to  the  Word  of  God.  So  that  let  men's 
judgments  be  what  they  will  concerning  the  primitive  form, 
seeing  it  hath  been  proved,  that  that  form  doth  not  bind  un- 
alterably and  necessarily,  it  remains  that  the  determining  of 
the  form  of  government  is  a  matter  of  liberty  in  the  church; 
and  what  is  so  may  be  determined  by  lawful  authority;  and 
what  is  so  determined  by  that  authority,  doth  bind  men  to 
obedience,  as  hath  been  proved  by  the  ffth  hyjwthesis,  in  the 
entrance  of  this  treatise.^  I  conclude  all  with  this  earnest 
desire,  That  the  wise  and  gracious  God  would  send  us  one 
heart  and  one  way,  that  he  would  be  the  composer  of  our 
differences,  and  the  healer  of  our  schisms,  strange  divisions 


'  His  Majesty's  Minister's  Second  Paper  to  tlie  Ministers  at  Newport,  at/ ^n. 

2  V.  Bishop  Usher's  reduction  of  episcopacy,  &c. 

3  Par.  1,  eh.  2,  s.  12. 


FORMS  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  441 

and  unchristian  animosities;  while  we  pretend  to  serve  the 
Prince  of  Peace,  we  may  at  last  see, 

THE    END. 

Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace,  good  will 
towards  men. — Luke  ii.  14. 


56 


I^' .'. 


A  DISCOURSE 


CONCERNING  THE 


POWER  Of  EXCOMMUNICATION 


CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 


The  name  of  power  in  a  church  explained.  The  mistake  of  which,  the  founda> 
tion  of  Erastianism.  The  notion  of  the  church  opened,  as  it  is  the  subject  of 
power.  The  church  proved  to  be  a  society  distinct  from  the  commonwealth; 
by  reason  of  its  different  nature,  and  divine  institution;  distinct  officers,  diffi;rent 
rights,  and  ends,  and  peculiar  offences.  The  power  of  the  church  doth  not 
arise  from  mere  confederation.  Tiie  church's  power  founded  on  the  nature  of 
the  Christian  society,  and  not  on  particular  precepts.  The  power  of  church 
officers  not  merely  doctrinal,  proved  by  several  arguments.  Church  power  as 
to  particular  persons  antecedent  to  confederation.  The  power  of  the  keys  re- 
lates to  baptism.  The  church's  power  extends  to  excommunication:  what  it 
is  and  what  grounds  it  had  under  the  law.  No  exclusion  from  temple  worship 
among  the  .lews.  Excommunication  necessary  in  a  Christian  church,  because 
of  the  conditions  supposed  to  communion  in  it.  Of  the  incestuous  person,  and 
the  grounds  of  the  apostolical  censure.  Objections  against  excommunication 
answered.  The  fundamental  rights  of  the  church  continue  after  its  being  in- 
corporated into  the  civil  state.  The  magistrate's  power  as  to  excommunication 
cleared. 

It^  is  a  matter  of  daily  observation  and  experience  in  the 
world,  how  hard  it  is  to  keep  the  eyes  of  the  understanding 
clear  in  its  judgment  of  things,  when  it  is  too  far  engaged  in 
the  dust  of  controversy.  It  being  so  very  difficult  to  manage 
well  an  impetuous  pursuit  after  any  opinion;  nothing  being 
more  common  than  to  see  men  outrun  their  mark,  and  through 

'  Append,  to  c.  8,  part  1,  §  1. 


444  A  DISCOURSE  CONCERNING  THE  POWER  OF 

the  force  of  their  speed  to  be  carried  as  far  beyond  it,  as  others 
ill  their  opinion  fall  short  of  it.  There  is  certainly  a  kind  of 
inebriety  of  the  mind,  as  well  as  of  the  body,  which  makes  it 
so  unstable  and  pendulous,  that  it  oft-times  reels  from  one  ex- 
treme unto  the  contrary.  This  as  it  is  obvious  in  most  eager 
controvertists  of  all  ages,  so  especially  in  such,  who  have  dis- 
covered the  falsity  of  an  opinion  they  were  once  confident  of, 
which  they  think  afterwards  they  can  never  run  far  enough 
from:  so  that  while  they  start  at  an  apparition  they  so  much 
dread,  they  run  into  those  untrodden  paths,  wherein  they  lose 
both  themselves  and  the  truth  they  souglit  for. 

§  2.  Thus  we  find  it  to  be  in  the  present  controversy,  for 
many  out  of  their  just  zeal  against  the  extravagancies  of  those 
who  screwed  up  church  power  to  so  high  a  peg,  that  it  was 
thought  to  make  perpetual  discord  with  the  commonwealth, 
could  never  think  themselves  Iree  from  so  great  an  incon- 
venience, till  they  had  melted  down  all  spiritual  power  into 
the  civil  state,  and  dissolved  the  church  into  the  common- 
wealth. But  that  the  world  may  see  I  have  not  been  more 
forward  to  assert  the  just  power  of  the  magistrate  in  ecclesias- 
ticals,  as  well  as  civils,  than  to  defend  the  fundamental  rights 
of  the  church,  I  have  taken  this  opportunity,  more  fully  to 
explain  and  vindicate  that  part  of  the  church's  power,  which 
lies  in  reference  to  offenders.  It  being  the  main  thing  struck 
at  by  those  who  are  the  followers  of  that  noted  physician,  who 
handled  the  church  so  ill,  as  to  deprive  her  of  her  expulsive 
faculty  of  noxious  humours,  and  so  left  her  under  a  miserere 
met} 

§  3.  I  shall  therefore  endeavour  to  give  the  church  her  due, 
as  well  as  Caesar  liis,  by  making  good  this  following  principle 
or  hypothesis,  upon  which  the  whole  hinge  of  this  controversy 
turns,  viz.  That  the  power  of  inflicting  censure  on  offenders 
in  a  Christian  church,  is  a  fundamental  right,  resulting  from 
the  constitution  of  the  church,  as  a  society  by  Jesus  Christ, 
and  that  the  seat  of  this  power  is  in  those  officers  of  the  church, 
who  have  derived  their  power  originally  from  the  founder  of 
this  society,  and  act  by  virtue  of  the  laws  of  it. 

§  4.  For  the  clear  stating  of  this  controversy,  it  will  be  ne- 
cessary to  explain,  what  that  power  is,  which  I  attribute  to 
the  church,  and  in  what  notion  the  church  is  to  be  considered 
as  it  exerciseth  this  power.  First,  Concerning  the  proper 
notion  of  power;  by  it  I  cannot  see  anything  else  to  be  under- 

'  "  Take  pity  on  me." 


EXCOMMUNICATION  IN  A  CHUlSTIAN  CHURCH.  445 

Stood,  than  a  right  of  governing  or  ordering  things  which  be- 
long to  a  society.  And  so  power  implies  only  a  moral  faculty 
in  the  person  enjoying  it,  to  take  care  ne  quid  civitas  detri- 
menti  capiat,  "that  the  state  take  no  harm,"  whereby  it  is 
evident  that  every  well  constituted  society  must  suppose  a 
power  within  itself  of  ordering  tilings  belonging  to  its  welfare, 
or  else  it  were  impossible,  either  the  being,  or  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  a  society  could  be  long  preserved.  Power  then 
in  its  general  and  abstracted  notion,  doth  not  necessarily  im- 
port either  mere  authority,  or  proper  coaction;  for  these,  to 
any  impartial  judgment,  will  appear  to  be  rather  the  several 
modes  whereby  power  is  exercised,  than  any  proper  ingre- 
dients of  the  specific  nature  of  it:  which,  in  general,  imports 
no  more  than  a  right  to  govern  a  constituted  society;  but  how 
that  right  shall  be  exercised,  must  be  resolved  not  from  the 
notion  of  power,  but  from  the  nature  and  constitution  of  that 
particular  society  in  which  it  is  lodged  and  inherent. 

§  5.  It  appears  then  from  hence  to  be  a  great  mistake  and 
abuse  of  well-natured  readers,  when  all  power  is  necessarily 
restrained,  either  to  that  which  is  properly  coercive,  or  to  that 
which  is  merely  arbitrary,  and  only  from  consent.  The  origi- 
nal of  which  mistake  is,  the  stating  the  notion  of  power  from 
the  use  of  the  word,  either  in  ancient  Roman  authors,  or  else 
in  the  civil  laws,  both  which  are  freely  acknowledged  to  be 
strangers  to  the  exercise  of  any  other  power,  than  that  which 
is  merely  authoritative  and  persuasive,  or  that  which  is  co- 
active  and  penal.  The  ground  of  which  is,  because  they 
were  ignorant  of  any  other  way  of  conveying  power,  besides 
external  force,  and  arbitrary  consent;  the  one  in  those  called 
legal  societies,  or  civitates,  or  states,  the  other  collegia  and 
hetxrix,  colleges  and  friendly  corporations.  But  to  those 
who  acknowledge  that  God  hath  a  right  of  commanding  men 
to  what  duty  he  pleases,  and  appointing  a  society  upon  what 
terms  best  please  him,  and  giving  a  power  to  particular  per- 
sons to  govern  that  society,  in  what  way  shall  tend  most  to 
advance  the  honour  of  such  a  society,  may  easily  be  made 
appear,  that  there  is  a  kind  of  power  neither  properly  coactive, 
nor  merely  arbitrary,  viz.  such  a  one  as  immediately  results 
from  divine  institution,  and  doth  suppose  consent  to  submit  to 
it  as  a  necessary  duty  in  all  the  members  of  this  society. 

§  6.  This  power,  it  is  evident,  is  not  merely  arbitrary  either 
in  the  governors  or  members:  for,  the  governors  derive  their 
power  or  right  of  governing  from  the  institution  of  Christ,  and 
are  to  be  regulated  by  his  laws  in  the  execution  of  it;  and  the 


446  A  DISCOURSE  CONCERNING  THE  POWER  OF 

members,  though  their  consent  be  necessarily  supposed,  yet 
that  consent  is  a  duty  in  them,  and  that  duty  doth  imply  their 
submission  to  the  rulers  of  this  society.  Neither  can  this 
power  be  called  coactive,  in  the  sense  it  is  commonly  taken: 
for  coactive  power,  and  external  force  are  necessary  correla- 
tives to  each  other,  but  we  suppose  no  such  thing  as  a  power 
of  outward  force  to  be  given  to  the  church  as  such,  for  that 
properly  belongs  to  a  commonwealth.  But  the  power  which 
I  suppose  to  be  lodged  in  the  church,  is  such  a  power  as  de- 
pends upon  a  law  of  a  superior,  giving  right  to  govern,  to 
particular  persons  over  such  a  society,  and  making  it  the  duty 
of  all  members  pf  it  to  submit  unto  it,  upon  no  other  penalties, 
than  the  exclusion  of  them  from  the  privileges,  which  that 
society  enjoys.  So  that  supposing  such  a  society  as  the 
church  is,  to  be  of  divine  institution,  and  that  Christ  hath  ap- 
pointed officers  to  rule  it,  it  necessarily  follows,  that  those 
officers  must  derive  their  power,  i.  e.  their  right  of  governing 
this  society,  not  merely  from  consent  and  confederation  of 
parties,  but  from  that  divine  institution,  on  which  the  society 
depends.  The  want  of  understanding  the  right  notion  of 
power  in  the  sense  here  set  down,  is  certainly  the  «sp«T'or  •-VeijSos, 
"  the  prime  delusion"  of  Erastianism,  and  that  which  hath 
given  occasion  to  so  many  to  question  any  such  thing  as 
power  in  the  church,  especially,  when  the  more  zealous  than 
judicious  defenders  of  it  have  rather  chosen  to  hang  it  upon 
some  doubtful  places  of  scripture,  than  on  the  very  nature  and 
constitution  of  the  Christian  church,  as  a  society  instituted  by 
Jesus  Christ. 

§  7.  This  being  then  the  nature  of  power  in  general,  it  is  I 
suppose  clear,  that  an  outward  coactive  force  is  not  necessary 
in  order  to  it,  for  if  some  may  have  a  right  to  govern  and 
others  may  be  obliged  to  obedience  to  those  persons  antece- 
dently, to  any  civil  constitution;  then  such  persons  have  a  just 
power  to  inflict  censures  upon  such  as  transgress  the  rules  of 
the  society,  without  any  outward  force.  It  is  here  very  im- 
pertinent to  dispute,  what  effects  such  censures  can  have  upon 
wilful  persons  without  a  coactive  power;  if  I  can  prove,  that 
there  is  a  right  to  inflict  them  in  church  officers,  and  an  obli- 
gation to  submit  to  them  in  all  offenders;  I  am  not  to  trouble 
myself  with  the  event  of  such  things  as  depend  on  divine 
institutions.  I  know  it  is  the  great  objection  of  the  followers 
of  Erastus,  that  church  censures  are  inflicted  upon  persons 
unwilling  to  receive  them,  and  therefore  must  imply  external 
and  coactive  force,  which  is  repugnant  to  the  nature  of  a 


EXCOMMUNICATION  IN  A  CHRISTIAN  CHtrkCH.  447 

church.  But  this  admits,  (according  to  the  principles  here 
established,)  of  a  very  easy  sohition;  for  I  deny  not,  that 
church  power  goes  upon  consent,  but  then  it  is  very  plain 
here  was  an  antecedent  consent  to  submit  to  censures  in  the 
very  entrance  into  this  society,  which  is  sufficient  to  denomi- 
nate it  a  voluntary  act  of  the  persons  undergoing  it;  and  my 
reason  is  this;  every  person  entering  into  a  society,  parts  with 
his  own  freedom  and  liberty,  as  to  matters  concerning  the  go- 
verning of  it,  and  professeth  submission  to  the  rules  and  orders 
of  it:  now  a  man  having  parted  with  his  freedom  already, 
cannot  reassume  it  when  he  pleases,  for,  then,  he  is  under  an 
obligation  to  stand  to  the  covenants  made  at  his  entrance;  and 
consequently  his  undergoing  what  shall  be  laid  upon  him  by 
the  laws  of  this  society,  must  be  supposed  to  be  voluntary,  as 
depending  upon  his  consent  at  first  entrance,  which  in  all 
societies  must  be  supposed  to  hold  still,  else  there  would  fol- 
low nothing  but  confusion  in  all  societies  in  the  world,  if 
every  man  were  at  liberty  to  break  his  covenants  when  any 
thing  comes  to  lie  upon  him  according  to  the  rules  of  the 
society,  which  he  out  of  some  private  design  would  be  un- 
willing to  undergo.  Thus  much  may  serve  to  settle  aright 
the  notion  of  power;  the  want  of  understanding  which,  hath 
caused  all  the  confusion  of  this  controversy. 

The  next  thing  is,  in  what  notion  we  are  to  consider  the 
church,  which  is  made  the  subject  of  this  power?  As  to  which 
we  are  to  consider  this  power;  either  as  to  its  right,  or  in  actu 
primo;  or  as  to  its  exercise,  or  in  actu  secundo,  "in  its  first 
or  second  act  or  stage."  Now  if  we  take  this  power  as  to 
the  fundamental  right  of  it;  then  it  belongs  to  that  universal 
church  of  Christ,  which  subsists  as  a  visible  society,  by  virtue 
of  that  law  of  Christ,  which  makes  an  owning  the  profession 
of  Christianity  the  duty  of  all  church  members.  If  we  con- 
sider this  power  in  the  exercise  of  it,  then,  (it  being  impossible 
that  the  universal  church  should  perform  the  executive  part 
of  this  power  relating  to  offences,)  I  suppose  it  lodged  in  that 
particular  society  of  Christians,  which  are  united  together  in 
one  body  in  the  community  of  the  same  government;  but  yet, 
so,  as  that  the  administration  of  this  power,  doth  not  belong 
to  the  body  of  the  society  considered  complexly,  but  to  those 
officers  in  it,  whose  care  and  charge  it  is,  to  have  a  peculiar 
oversight  and  inspection  over  the  church,  and  to  redress  all 
disorders  in  it.  Thus  the  visive  faculty  is  fundamentally 
lodged  in  the  soul,  yet  all  exterior  acts  of  sight  are  performed 
by  the  eyes,  which  are  the  erttoxortov  overseers  of  the  body, 


448  A  DISCOURSE  CONCERNING  THE  POWER  OF 

as  the  other  are  of  the  church,  so  that  the  exercise  and  admi  • 
nistration  of  this  power,  belongs  to  the  special  officers  and 
governors  of  the  church;  none  else  being  capable  of  exercising 
this  power  of  the  church  as  such  but  they  on  whom  it  is  set- 
tied  by  the  founder  of  the  church  itself 

§  9.  This  society  of  the  church  may  be  again  considered; 
either  as  subsisting  without  any  influence  from  the  civil  power, 
or  as  it  is  owned  by,  and  incorporated  into,  a  Christian  state. 
I  therefore  demand,  whether  it  be  absolutely  necessary  for 
the  subsistence  of  this  Christian  society,  to  be  upheld  by  the 
civil  power,  or  not?  And  certainly  none  who  consider  the 
first  and  purest  ages  of  the  Christian  church,  can  give  any 
entertainment  to  the  affirmative,  because  then  the  church 
floiu'ished  in  its  greatest  purity,  not  only  when  not  upheld,  but 
when  most  violently  opposed  by  the  civil  power;  if  so,  then 
its  being  united  with  the  civil  state  is  only  accidental  as  to  its 
constitution;  and  if  this  be  only  accidental,  then  it  must  be 
supposed  furnished  with  everything  requisite  to  its  well  order- 
ing accidentally  to  any  such  union,  and  abstractly  from  it. 
For  can  we  imagine  our  blessed  Saviour  should  institute  a 
society,  and  leave  it  destitute  of  means  to  uphold  itself,  unless 
it  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  civil  power?  or  that  he  left  every 
thing  tending  thereto,  merely  to  prudence,  and  the  arbitrary 
constitutions  of  the  jiersons  joining  together  in  this  society? 
Did  our  Saviour  lake  care  there  should  be  a  society,  and  not 
provide  for  means  to  uphold  if?  Nay,  it  is  evident,  he  not  only 
appointed  a  society,  but  officers  to  rule  it.  Had  those  officers 
tiien  a  right  to  govern  or  not,  by  virtue  of  Christ's  institution  of 
them?  if  not,  they  were  rather  Bibuli}  than  Csesares,  cyphers 
than  consuls  in  the  church  of  God.  If  they  had  a  power  to 
govern,  doth  not  that  necessarily  imply  a  right  to  inflict  cen- 
sures on  offenders,  unless  we  will  suppose  that  either  there 
can  be  no  offenders  in  a  Ciiristian  church,  or  that  those  offend- 
ers do  not  violate  the  laws  of  the  society,  or  there  be  some 
prohibition  for  them  to  exercise  their  power  over  them,  (which 
is  to  give  power  with  one  hand,  and  take  it  away  with  the 
other,)  or  that  this  power  cannot  extend  so  far  as  to  exclude 
any  from  the  privileges  of  the  church:  which  is  the  thing  to  be 
discussed. 

§  10.  Having  thus  cleared  our  way,  I  now  come  to  the 
resolution  of  the  question  itself,  in  order  to  which  I  shall  en- 

'  Bibulus  was  fellow-consul  with  Caesar;  but  he  left  Caesar  fo  act.  whilst  he 
spent  lijs  time  to  protest  against  his  colleague. — Am.  Ed^ 


EXCOMMUNICATION  IN  A  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  449 

deavour  to  demonstrate,  with  what  evidence  the  subject  is 
capable  ot',  these  following  things:  First,  That  the  church  is 
a  pecuhar  society  in  its  own  nature,  distinct  from  the  com- 
monwealth. Secondly,  That  the  power  of  tlie  church  over 
its  members  doth  not  arise  from  mere  confederation  or  con- 
sent of  parties.  Thirdly,  That  this  power  of  the  church 
doth  extend  to  the  exclusion  of  offenders  from  the  privileges 
of  it.  Fourthly,  That  the  fundamental  rights  of  the  church 
do  not  escheat  to  the  commonwealth  upon  their  being  united 
in  a  Christian  state.  If  these  principles  be  established,  the 
church's  power  will  stand  upon  them,  as  on  a  firm  and  im- 
movable basis. 

§  11.  I  begin  with  the  first.  That  the  church  is  a  peculiar 
society  in  its  own  nature,  distinct  from  the  commonwealth, 
which  I  prove  by  these  arguments: 

1.  Those  societies,  which  are  capable  of  subsisting  apart 
from  each  other,  are  really,  and  in  tlieir  own  nature,  distinct 
from  one  another;  but  so  it  is  with  the  church  and  common- 
wealth. For  there  can  be  no  greater  evidence  of  a  real  dis- 
tinction than  mutual  separation;  and  I  think  the  proving  the 
possibility  of  the  soul's  existing  separate  from  the  body,  is 
one  of  the  strongest  arguments  to  prove  it  to  be  a  substance 
really  distinct  from  the  body,  to  which  it  is  united;  although 
we  are  often  fain  to  go  the  other  way  to  work,  and  to  prove 
possibility  of  separation  from  other  arguments  evincing  the 
soul  to  be  a  distinct  substance;  but  the  reason  of  that  is  for 
want  of  evidence  as  to  the  state  of  separate  souls,  and  their 
visible  existence,  which  is  repugnant  to  the  immateriality  of 
their  natures.  But  now,  as  to  the  matter  in  hand,  we  have 
all  evidence  desirable;  for  we  are  nat  to  prove  the  possibility 
of  separation,  merely  from  the  different  constitution  of  the 
things  united,  but  we  have  the  evidence  of  sense  for  it,  that 
the  church  hath  subsisted  when  it  hath  been  not  only  sepa- 
rated from,  but  persecuted  by  all  civil  power.  It  is  with 
many  men  as  to  the  union  of  church  and  state,  as  it  is  with 
others,  as  to  the  union  of  the  soul  and  body:  when  they  ob- 
serve how  close  the  union  is,  and  how  much  the  soul  makes 
use  of  the  animal  spirits  in  most  of  its  operations,  and  how 
great  a  sympathy  there  is  between  them,  that,  like  the  twins 
of  Hippocrates,  they  laugh  and  weep  together,  they  are 
shrewdly  put  to  it,  how  to  fancy  the  soul  to  be  anything  else 
than  a  more  vigorous  mode  of  matter;  for  these  observing 
how  close  an  union  and  dependence  there  is  between  the 
church  and  state  in  a  Christian  commonwealth,  and  how 
57 


450  A  DISCOURSE  CONCERNING  THE  POWER  OF 

much  the  church  is  beholding  to  the  civil  power  in  the  admin- 
istration of  its  functions,  are  apt  to  think  that  the  church  is 
nothing  but  a  higher  mode  of  a  commonwealth,  considered  as 
Christian.  But  when  it  is  so  evident  that  the  church  hath, 
and  may  subsist,  supposing  it  abstracted  from  all  civil  power, 
it  may  be  a  sufficient  demonstration,  tliat  however  near  they 
may  be  when  united,  yet  they  are  really,  and  in  their  own 
nature,  distinct  from  each  other.  Which  was  the  thing  to  be 
proved. 

§  12.  —  2.  Those  are  distinct  societies,  which  have  every  thing 
distinct  in  their  nature  from  each  other,  which  belong  to  the 
constitution  or  government  of  them;  but  this  is  evident,  as  to 
the  churcii  and  commonwealth,  which  will  appear,  because 
their  charter  is  distinct,  or  that  which  gives  them  their  being 
as  a  society:  civil  societies  are  founded  upon  the  necessity  of 
particular  men's  parting  with  their  peculiar  rights,  for  the 
preservation  of  themselves,  which  was  the  impulsive  cause  of 
their  entering  into  societies;  but  that  which  actually  speaks 
them  to  be  a  society,  is  the  mutual  consent  of  the  several  par- 
ties joining  together,  whereby  they  make  themselves  to  be 
one  body,  and  to  have  one  common  interest.  So  Cicero  de 
Repiib.  defines  populus  to  be  "  the  engagement  of  many 
associated  together,  by  an  agreement  as  to  right,  and  for  the 
participation  of  mutual  advantage."'  There  is  no  doubt,  but 
God's  general  providence  is  as  evidently  seen  in  bringing  the 
world  into  societies,  and  making  them  live  under  government, 
as  in  disposing  all  particular  events  which  happen  in  those 
societies;  but  yet  the  way  which  Providence  useth  in  the  con- 
stitution of  these  societies,  is  by  inclining  men  to  consent  to 
associate  for  their  mutual  benefit  and  advantage.  So  that 
natural  reason,  consulting  for  the  good  of  mankind,  as  to  those 
rights  which  men  enjoy  in  common  with  each  other,  was  the 
main  foundation  upon  which  all  civil  societies  were  erected. 
We  find  no  positive  law  enacting  the  being  of  civil  societies, 
because  nature  itself  would  prompt  men  for  their  own  con- 
veniencies  to  enter  into  them.  But  the  ground  and  founda- 
tion of  that  society,  which  we  call  a  church,  is  a  matter  which 
natural  reason  and  common  notions  could  never  reach;  and 
therefore  an  associating  for  the  preserving  of  such,  may  be  a 
philosophical  society,  but  a  Christian  it  cannot  be:  and  they 
that  would  make  a  Christian  church  to  be  nothing  else  but  a 


'  C'cEtus  mullitiidini!-:,  juris  consensu  ot  utililiitis  communione  sociatiis. — Apud. 
AufTUst.  He  Civit.  de  1.  9,  c.  21. 


EXCOMMUNICATION  IN  A  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  451 

society  of  the  Essenes,  or  an  onaxotvov  of  Pythagoreans,'  do 
either  not  understand,  or  not  consider  whereon  this  Christian 
society  is  founded;  for  it  is  evident  they  look  on  it  as  a  merely 
voluntary  thing,  that  is  not  at  all  settled  by  any  divine  positive 
law. 

§  13.  The  truth  is,  there  is  no  principle  more  consistent 
with  the  opinion  of  those  who  deny  any  church  power  in  a 
Christian  state  than  this  is,  and  it  is  that  which  every  one  who 
will  make  good  his  ground  must  be  driven  to;  for  it  is  evident, 
that  in  matters  merely  voluntary,  and  depending  only  on  con- 
federation, such  things  being  liable  to  a  magistrate's  power, 
there  can  be  no  plea  from  mutual  consent  to  justify  any  oppo- 
sition to  supreme  authority  in  a  commonwealth.  But,  then, 
how  such  persons  can  be  Christians,  when  the  magistrates 
would  have  them  to  be  otherwise,  I  cannot  understand;  nor 
how  the  primitive  martyrs  were  any  other  than  a  company  of 
fools  or  madmen,  who  would  hazard  their  lives  for  that  which 
was  a  mere  arbitrary  thing,  and  which  they  had  no  necessary 
obligation  upon  them  to  profess.  Mistake  me  not,  I  speak 
not  here  of  mere  acts  of  discipline,  but  of  the  duty  of  outwardly 
professing  Christianity.  If  this  be  a  duty,  then  a  Christiarl 
society  is  settled  by  a  positive  law;  if  it  be  not  a  duty,  then 
they  are  fools  who  suffer  for  it:  so  that  this  question  resolved 
into  its  principles,  leads  us  higher  than  we  think  for,  and  the 
main  thing  in  debate  must  be,  whether  there  be  an  obligation 
upon  conscience  for  men  to  associate  in  the  profession  of  Chris- 
tianity or  not?  If  there  be,  then  the  church,  which  is  nothing 
else  but  such  an  association,  is  established  upon  a  positive  law 
of  Christ;  if  there  be  not,  then  those  inconveniences  follow 
which  are  already  mentioned. 

§  14,  We  are  told  indeed  by  the  Leviathan  with  confidence 
enough,  that  no  precepts  of  the  gospel  are  law,  till  enacted  by 
civil  authority;  but  it  is  little  wonder,  that  he  who  thinks  an 
immaterial  substance  implies  a  contradiction,  should  think  as 
much  of  calling  anything  a  law,  but  what  hath  a  civil  sanction. 
But  I  suppose  all  those  who  dare  freely  own  a  supreme  and 
infinite  essence  to  have  been  the  Creator,  and  to  be  the  ruler 
of  the  world,  will  acknowledge  his  power  to  oblige  conscience, 
without  being  beholding  to  his  own  creature  to  enact  his  laws, 
that  men  might  be  bound  to  obey  them.  Was  the  great  God 
fain  to  be  beholding  to  the  civil  authority  he  had  over  the 

1  A  school,  or  place  vvhere  all  might  hear  together:  from  Ojuuoj, '  together,'  and 
axouEiv,  'to  hear:'  a  Pythagorean  school. — Am.  Ed. 


452  A  DISCOURSE  CONCERNING  THE  POWER  OF 

Jewish  commonwealth,  (their  government  being  a  ©iox^atva, 
a  theocracy,)  to  make  his  laws  obUgatory  to  the  consciences 
of  the  Jews?  What,  had  not  they  their  beings  from  God?  and 
can  there  be  any  greater  ground  of  obHgation  to  obedience 
than  from  thence?  Whence  comes  civil  power  to  have  any 
right  to  oblige  men  more,  than  God,  considered  as  governor 
of  the  world,  can  have?  Can  there  be  indeed  no  other  laws 
according  to  the  Leviathan's  hypothesis,  but  only  the  law  of 
nature  and  civil  laws?  But  I  pray,  whence  comes  the  obli- 
gation to  either  of  these,  that  these  are  not  as  arbitrary  as  all 
other  agreements  are?  And  is  it  not  as  strong  a  dictate  of 
nature  as  any  can  be,  (supposing  that  there  is  a  God,)  that  a 
creature  which  receives  its  being  from  another,  should  be 
bound  to  obey  him,  not  only  in  the  resultancies^  of  his  own 
nature,  but  with  the  arbitrary  constitutions  of  his  will.  Was 
Adam  bound  to  obey  God  or  not,  as  to  that  positive  precept  of 
eating  the  forbidden  fruit,  if  no  civil  sanction  had  been  added 
to  that  law?  The  truth  is,  such  hypotheses  as  these  are,  when 
they  are  followed  close  home,  will  be  found  to  kennel  in  that 
black  den,  from  whence  they  are  loath  to  be  thought  to  have 
proceeded. 

§  15.  And  now,  supposing  that  every  full  declaration  of  the 
will  of  Christ,  as  to  any  positive  institution,  hath  the  force 
and  power  of  a  law  upon  the  consciences  of  all,  to  whom  it  is 
sufficiently  proposed:  I  proceed  to  make  it  appear,  that  such 
a  divine  positive  law  there  is,  for  the  existence  of  a  church,  as 
a  visible  body  and  society  in  the  world;  by  which  I  am  far 
from  meaning  such  a  conspicuous  society,  that  must  continue 
in  a  perpetual  visibility  in  the  same  places;  I  find  not  the 
least  intimation  of  any  such  thing  in  scripture;  but  that  there 
shall  always  be,  somewhere  or  other,  in  the  world,  a  society 
owning  and  professing  Christianity,  may  be  easily  deduced 
from  thence;  and  especially  on  this  account,  that  our  Saviour 
hath  required  this,  as  one  of  the  conditions  in  order  to  eternal 
felicity,  that  all  those  who  believe  in  their  hearts,  that  Jesus 
is  the  Christ,  must  likewise  confess  him  with  their  mouths  to 
the  world;  and  therefore,  as  long  as  there  are  men  to  believe 
in  Christ,  there  must  be  men  that  will  not  be  ashamed  to  asso- 
ciate, on  the  account  of  the  doctrine  he  hath  pronmlged  to 
the  world.  That  one  phrase  in  the  New  Testament,  so  fre- 
quently used  by  our  blessed  Saviour,  of  the  Kingdom  of 

1  Understand  the  constant,  never  ceasing,  and  everywhere  existing  emanations 
of  His  nature,  whether  perceived  or  acknowledged  by  man  or  not.     Am.  Ed. 


EXCOMMUNICATION  IN  A  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  453 

Heaven,  (importing  a  gospel  state,)  doth  evidently  declare  a 
society",  which  was  constituted  by  him,  on  the  principles  of  the 
gospel  covenant.  Wherefore  should  our  Saviour  call  disciples, 
and  make  apostles,  and  send  them  abroad  with  full  commis- 
sion to  gather  and  initiate  disciples  by  baptism;  did  he  not 
intend  a  visible  society  for  his  church?  Had  it  not  been 
enough  for  men  to  have  cordially  believed  the  truth  of  the 
gospel,  but  they  must  be  entered  in  a  solemn  visible  way,  and 
join  in  participation  of  visible  symbols  of  bread  and  wine,  but 
that  our  Saviour  required  external  profession  and  society  in 
the  gospel  as  a  necessary  duty,  in  order  to  obtaining  the  pri- 
vileges conveyed  by  his  Magna  Charta  in  the  gospel.  I  would 
fain  know  by  what  argument  we  can  prove,  that  any  human 
legislator  did  ever  intend  a  commonwealth  -to  be  governed 
according  to  his  mode,  by  which  we  cannot  prove  that  Christ 
by  a  positive  law,  did  command  such  a  society,  as  should  be 
governed  in  a  visible  manner,  as  other  societies  are?  Did  he 
not  appoint  oflicers  himself  in  the  church,  and  that  of  many 
ranks  and  degrees?  Did  he  not  invest  those  officers  with 
authority  to  rule  his  church?  Is  it  not  laid  as  a  charge  on 
them,  to  take  heed  to  that  flock,  over  which  God  had  made 
them  overseers?  Are  there  not  rules  laid  down  for  the  pecu- 
har  exercise  of  their  government  over  the  church  in  all  the 
parts  of  it?  Were  not  these  officers  admitted  into  their  func- 
tion by  a  most  solemn  visible  rite  of  imposition  of  hands? 
And  are  all  these  solemn  transactions  a  mere  piece  of  sacred 
pageantry?  And  they  will  appear  to  be  little  more,  if  the 
society  of  the  church  be  a  mere  arbitrary  thing,  depending 
only  upon  consent  and  confederation,  and  not  subsisting  by 
virtue  of  any  charter  from  Christ,  or  some  positive  law,  re- 
quiring all  Christians  to  join  in  church  society  together. 

§  16.  But  if  now  from  hence  it  appears,  (as  certainly  it  can- 
not but  appear,)  that  this  society  of  the  church  doth  subsist 
by  virtue  of  a  divine  positive  law,  then  it  must  of  necessity 
be  distinct  from  a  civil  society,  and  that  on  these  accounts: 
First,  because  there  is  an  antecedent  obligation  on  conscience 
to  associate  on  the  account  of  Christianity,  whether  human 
laws  prohibit  or  command  it.  From  whence,  of  necessity,  it 
follows,  that  the  constitution  of  the  church  is  really  different 
from  that  of  the  commonwealth;  because  whether  the  com- 
monwealth be  for,  or  against,  this  society,  all  that  own  it  are 
bound  to  profess  it  openly,  and  declare  themselves  members 
of  it.  Whereas,  were  the  church  and  commonwealth  really 
and  formally  the  same,  all  obligation  to  church  society  would 


454  A  DISCOURSE  CONCERNING  THE  POWER  OP 

arise  merely  from  the  legislative  power  of  the  commonwealth. 
But  now  there  being  a  divine  law,  binding  in  conscience, 
whose  obligation  cannot  be  superseded  by  any  human  law,  it 
is  plain  and  evident,  where  are  such  vastly  different  obliga- 
tions, there  are  different  powers;  and  in  this  sense  I  know  no 
incongruity,  in  admitting  imperium  in  imperio,  "a  govern- 
ment within  a  government,"  if  by  it  we  understand  no  exter- 
nal coactive  power,  but  an  internal  power  laying  obligation 
on  conscience,  distinct  from  the  power  lodged  in  a  common- 
wealth considered  as  such.  An  outward  coactive  power  was 
always  disowned  by  Christ,  but  certainly  not  an  internal 
power  over  conscience  to  oblige  all  iiis  disciples  to  what 
duties  he  thought  fit. 

Secondly,  I  argue  from  those  officers,  wliose  right  to  govern 
this  society  are  founded  on  that  charter,  whereby  the  society 
itself  subsists.     Now  I  would  willingly  know  why,  when  our 
Saviour  disowned  all  outward  power  in  the  world,  yet  he 
should  constitute  a  society,  and  appoint  officers  in  it,  did  he 
not  intend  a  peculiar  distinct  society  from  the  other  societies 
of  the  world.     And  therefore  the  argument  frequently  used 
against  church  power,  because  it  hath  no  outward  force  with 
it  by  the  constitution  of  Christ,  is  a  strong  argument  to  me  of 
the  peculiarity  of  a  Christian  society  from  a  commonwealth; 
because  Christ  so  instituted  it,  as  not  to  have  it  ruled  at  first 
by  any  outward  force  or  power.     When    Christ  saith   his 
kingdom  was  not  of  this  luorld,  he  implies,  tiiat  he  had  a 
society  that  was  governed  by  his  laws  in  the  world,  yet  dis- 
tinct from  all  mundane  societies:  had  not  our  Saviour  intended 
his  church  to  have  been  a  peculiar  society  distinct  from  a 
commonwealth,  it  is  hard  to  conceive  why  our  Saviour  should 
interdict  the  apostles  the  use  of  a  civil  coactive  power.     Or 
why  instead  of  sending  abroad  apostles  to  preach  the  gospel, 
he  did  not  employ  the  governors  of  commonwealths  to  have 
enforced  Christianity  by  laws  and  temporal  edicts,  and  the 
several  magistrates  to  have  empowered  several  persons  under 
them  to  preach  the  gospel  in  their  several  territories?     And 
can  anything  be  more  plain,  by  our  Saviour's  taking  a  con- 
trary course,  than  that  he  intended  a  church  society  to  be  dis- 
tinct from  civil,  and  the  power  belonging  to  it,  (as  well  as  the 
officers,)  to  be  of  a  different  nature  from  that  which  is  settled 
in  a  commonwealth.     I  here  suppose,  that  Christ  hath  by  a 
positive  law  established  the  government  of  his  church  upon 
officers  of  his  own  appointment;  which  I  have  largely  proved 


EXCOMMUNICATION  IN  A  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  455 

elsewhere,^  and  therefore  suppose  it  now.  Thirdly,  I  argue 
from  the  peculiar  rights  belonging  to  these  societies.  For  if 
every  one  born  in  the  commonwealth  has  not  thereby  a  right 
to  the  privileges  of  the  church,  nor  every  one  by  being  of  the 
church,  any  right  to  the  benefits  of  the  commonwealth,  it 
must  necessarily  follow,  that  these  are  distinct  from  one  an- 
other. If  any  one  by  being  of  the  commonwealth,  hath  right 
to  church  privileges,  then  every  one  born  in  a  commonwealth 
may  challenge  a  right  to  the  Lord's  supper  without  baptism, 
or  open  profession  of  Christianity,  which  1  cannot  think  any 
will  be  very  ready  to  grant.  Now  there  being  by  divine 
appointment  the  several  rights  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper,  as  peculiar  badges  of  the  church  as  a  visible  society, 
it  is  evident,  Christ  did  intend  it  to  be  a  society  distinct  from 
the  commonwealth. 

Fourthly,  I  argue  from  the  different  ends  of  these  societies. 
A  commonwealth  is  constituted  for  civil  ends,  and  the  church 
for  spiritual:  for  ends  are  to  be  judged  by  the  primary  consti- 
tution, but  now  it  is  plain,  the  end  of  civil  society  is  for  pre- 
servation of  men's  rights  as  men,  (therefore  magistracy  is 
called  by  St.  Peter  wepuTtivT]  xltais,  "a  human  ordinance  or 
institution,"  appointed  by  man  for  the  good  of  man:  see  1 
Pet.  i'l.  13;)  but  this  Christian  society  doth  not  respect  men 
under  the  connotation  of  men  but  as  Christians,  The  answer 
given  to  this  is  very  short  and  insufficient,  when  it  is  said, 
that  every  man  in  a  commonwealth  is  to  act  upon  spiritual 
accounts  and  ends.  For  there  is  a  great  deal  of  difference 
between  Christianity's  having  an  influence  upon  men's  ac- 
tions in  a  commonwealth,  and  making  a  society  the  same  with 
a  commonwealth.  To  argue  therefore  from  one  to  another, 
is  a  shortness  of  discourse  I  cannot  but  wonder  at:  unless  it 
could  be  proved,  that  Christianity  aimed  at  nothing  else  but 
regulating  men  in  the  affairs  of  a  commonwealth,  which  is  a 
task  I  suppose  will  not  be  undertaken. 

Lastly,  I  argue  from  the  peculiar  offences  against  this 
society,  which  are,  or  may  be  distinct  from  those  against  a 
commonwealth.  I  deny  not,  but  most  times  they  are  the 
same;  but  frequently  they  differ,  and  when  they  are  the 
same,  yet  the  consideration  of  them  is  different  in  the  church 
and  commonwealth,  for  which  I  shall  suppose  the  six  argu- 
ments produced  in  the  last  chapter  of  the  first  part  to  stand 
good,2  which  will  strongly  hold  to  excommunication  in  the 

•  Iren.  p.  2,  c.  2.  2  Ircn.  p.  1,  c.  8. 


456  A  DISCOURSE  CONCERNING  THE  POWER  OF 

Christian  church,  though  there  produced  only  for  the  Jewish, 
I  would  fain  know  what  is  to  be  done  in  many  offences, 
known  to  be  against  tiie  laws  of  Christ,  and  which  tend  to 
the  dishonour  of  the  Christian  society,  which  the  civil  and 
municipal  laws,  either  do  not,  or  may  not  take  cognizance  of? 
Thus  much  may  serve,  as  I  think  to  make  evident,  that  the 
church  in  its  own  nature,  is  a  peculiar  society  distinct  from  a 
commonwealth,  which  was  the  first  proposition  to  be  proved. 

§  17.  The  second  is,  "  That  the  power  of  the  church  over  its 
members  in  case  of  offences,  doth  not  arise  merely  from  con- 
federation and  consent,  though  it  doth  suppose  it."  This 
cfuirch  power  may  be  considered  two  ways.  K[{her,Ji?'st,  as 
it  implies  the  right  in  some  of  inflicting  censures.  Or  second/^, 
as  it  implies  in  others,  the  duty  of  submitting  to  censures  in- 
flicted; now  as  to  both  these,  I  shall  prove  that  their  original 
is  higher  than  mere  confederation. 

1.  As  to  the  right  of  inflicting  censures  on  these  accounts. 
First,  Wiiatever  society  doth  subsist  by  virtue  of  a  divine 
constitution,  doth  by  virtue  thereof  derive  all  power  for  its 
preservation,  in  peace,  unity,  and  purity;  but  it  is  plain,  that 
a  power  of  censuring  offenders,  is  necessary  for  the  church's 
preservation  in  peace  and  purity;  and  it  is  already  proved, 
tliat  the  church  hath  its  charter  from  Christ,  and  therefore 
from  him  it  hath  a  power  to  inflict  punishments  on  offenders, 
suitable  to  the  nature  of  the  society  they  are  of  I  am  very 
prone  to  think  that  the  ground  of  all  the  mistakes  on  this  sub- 
ject have  risen  from  hence,  that  some,  imprudently  enough, 
have  fixed  the  original  of  this  power  on  some  ambiguous 
places  of  scripture,  which  may,  and  perhaps  ought  to  be  taken 
in  a  different  sense;  and  their  adversaries,  finding  those  places 
weak  and  insufficient  proofs  of  such  a  power,  have  from 
thence  rejected  any  such  kind  of  power  at  all.  But  certainly, 
if  we  should  reject  every  truth  that  is  weakly  proved  by  some 
who  have  undertaken  it,  I  know  no  opinion  would  bid  so  fair 
for  acceptance  as  skepticism,  and  that  in  reference  to  many 
weighty  and  important  truths.  For  how  weakly  have  some 
proved  the  existence  of  a  Deity,  the  immortality  of  the  soul, 
and  the  truth  of  the  scriptures,  by  such  arguments,  that  if  it 
were  enough  to  overthrow  an  opinion  to  be  able  to  answer 
some  arguments  brought  for  it,  atheism  itself  would  become 
plausible.  It  can  be  then  no  evidence,  that  a  thing  is  not  true, 
because  some  arguments  will  not  prove  it;  and  truly  as  to  the 
matter  in  hand,  I  am  fully  of  the  opinion  of  the  excellent  H. 


EXCOMMUNICATION  IN  A  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  457 

Grotius,'  speaking  of  excommunication  in  the  Christian  church; 
"  Neither  is  any  special  precept  necessary  for  that  purpose; 
since  all  tilings  enjoined  ought  to  be  determined  by  an  assem- 
bly of  the  church,  by  Christ  once  constituted;  without  which 
the  purity  of  that  assembly  cannot  be  maintained."^  And 
therefore  men  spend  needless  pains  to  prove  an  institution  of 
this  power  by  some  positive  precept,  when  Christ's  founding 
his  church  as  a  peculiar  society,  is  sufficient  proof  he  hath 
endowed  it  with  this  fundamental  right,  without  which  the 
society,  were  arena  sine  calce^  "  sand  without  cement,"  a 
company  of  persons  without  any  common  tie  of  union  among 
them;  for  if  there  be  any  such  union,  it  must  depend  on  some 
conditions,  to  be  performed  by  the  members  of  that  society, 
which  how  could  they  require  from  them,  if  they  have  not 
power  to  exclude  them  upon  non-performance? 

2,  I  prove  the  divine  original  of  this  power  from  the  special 
appointment  and  designation  of  particular  officers  by  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  ruling  of  this  society.  Now  I  say,  that  law 
which  provides  there  shall  be  officers  to  govern,  doth  give 
them  power  to  govern,  suitably  to  the  namre  of  their  society: 
either  then  you  must  deny,  that  Christ  hath  by  an  unalterable 
institution  appointed  a  gospel  ministry,  or  that  this  ministry 
hath  no  power  in  the  church,  or  that  their  power  extends  not 
to  excommunication.  The  first  I  have  already  proved,  the 
second  follows  from  their  appointment:  for  by  all  the  titles 
given  to  church  officers  in  scripture,  it  appears  they  had  a 

power  over  the  church,  (as  sTi^oxoTioi  a^otgutsi,  riyovysvov,  Ttoifisvsi, 

'•overseers,  presidents,  leaders,  pastors.")  All  which  as  you 
well  know,  do  import  a  right  to  govern  the  society  over  which 
they  are  set.  And  that  this  power  should  not  extend  to  a 
power  to  exclude  convict  offenders,  seems  very  strange,  when 
no  other  punishment  can  be  more  suitable  to  the  nature  of  the 
society  than  this  is;  which  is  a  debarring  him  fram  the  privi- 
leges of  that  society,  which  the  offender  hath  so  much  dis- 
honoured. Can  there  be  any  punishment  less  imagined 
towards  contumacious  offenders  than  this  is,  or  that  carries  in 
it  less  of  outward  and  coactive  force,  it  implying  nothing  but 
what  the  offender  himself  freely  yielded  to  at  his  entrance  into 
this  society. 

§  18,  All  that  I  can  find  replied  by  any  of  the  adversaries 

1  In  Luke  vi.  22. 

2  Neque  ad  earn  rem  peculiare  prsBceptum  desideratur,  cum  ecclesiae  coetu  k 
Cliristo  semel  constiluto,  omnia  ilia  imperata  censeri  debent,  sine  quibus  ejus 
ccelCls  puritas  retineri  doq  potest. 

58 


458  A  DISCOURSE  COl^CERNING  THE  POWER  OF 

of  the  opinion  I  here  assert,  to  the  argument  drawn  from  the 
institution  and  titles  of  the  officers  of  the  chnrch,  is,  that  all 
those  titles  which  are  given  to  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  in  the 
New  Testament,  that  do  import  rule  and  government,  are  all 
to  be  taken  in  a  spiritual  sense,  as  they  are  Christ's  ministers 
and  ambassadors  to  preach  his  word  and  declare  his  will  to 
his  church.  So  that  all  power  such  persons  conceive  to  lie  in 
those  titles,  is  only  doctrinal  and  declarative;  but  how  true 
that  is,  let  any  one  judge  that  considers  these  things, 

1.  That  there  was  certainly  a  power  of  discipline  then  in 
the  churches  constituted  by  the  apostles,  is  most  evident  not 
only  from  the  passages  relating  to  offenders  in  St.  PanTs 
epistles,  especially  to  the  Corinthians  and  Thessalonians.  but 
from  the  continued  practice  of  succeeding  ages  manifested  by 
Tertullian,  Cyprian,  and  many  others  There  being  then  a 
power  of  discipline  in  apostolical  churches,  there  was  a  neces- 
sity it  should  be  administered  by  some  persons  who  had  the 
care  of  those  churches;  and  who  were  they  but  the  several 
pastors  of  them?  It  being  then  evident  that  there  was  such  a 
power,  doth  it  not  stand  to  common  sense  it  should  be  implied 
in  such  titles,  which  in  their  natural  import  do  signify  a  right 
to  govern,  as  the  names  of  pastors  and  rulers  do? 

2.  There  is  a  diversity  in  scripture  made  between  pastors 
and  teachers,  Ephes.  iv.  11.  Tliough  this  doth  not  imply  a 
necessity  of  two  distinct  offices  in  the  church,  yet  it  doth  a 
different  respect  and  connotation  in  the  same  person,  and  so 
imports  that  ruling  carries  in  it  somewhat  more  than  mere 
teaching;  and  so  the  power  implied  in  pastors  to  be  more  than 
merely  doctrinal,  which  is  all  I  contend  for,  viz.  a  right  to 
govern  the  flock  committed  to  their  charge. 

3  What  possible  difference  can  be  assigned  between  the 
"elders  that  rule  well,  and  those  which  labour  in  the  word 
and  doctrine,"  1  Timothy  v.  17,  if  all  their  ruling  were  merely 
labouring  in  the  word  and  doctrine?  and  all  their  governing 
nothing  but  teaching?  I  intend  not  to  prove  an  office  of  rulers 
distinct  from  teachers  from  hence,  (which  I  know  neither  this 
place,  nor  any  other  will  do,)  but  that  the  formal  conception 
of  ruling,  is  different  from  that  of  teaching. 

4.  I  argue  from  the  analogy  between  the  primitive  churches 
and  tlie  synagogues,  that,  as  many  of  the  names  were  taken 
from  thence  where  they  carried  a  power  of  discipline  with 
them,  so  they  must  do  in  son)e  proportion  in  the  church;  or  it 
Avere  not  easy  to  understand  them.  It  is  most  certain  the 
presbyters  of  the  synagogue  had  a  power  of  ruling,  and  can 


EXCOMMUNICATION  IN  A  CHRISTIAN  CHUflCH.  459 

you  conceive  the  bishops  and  presbyters  of  the  cfiurch  had 
none,  wlien  the  societies  were  much  of  the  same  constitution, 
and  the  government  of  the  one  was  transcribed  from  the  other, 
as  hath  been  already  largely  proved? 

5.  The  acts  attributed  to  pastor  in  scripture,  imply.a  power  of 
governing,  distinct  from  mere  teaching;  such  are  Ttot^awsiv,^ 
used  for  a  rigiit  to  govern,  Mat.  ii.  6;  jRev.  xii.  5;  xix.  15; 
which  word  is  attributed  to  pastors  of  churches  in  reference 
to  their  flocks,  ^cls  xx.  28;  1  Pet.  v.  2,  and  ts/joj-acrta,  is  applied 
to  ministers,  when  they  are  so  frequeutly  called  viposguta, 
which  denotes prsesidentiam  cumpotestate,  "presidency  with 
power;"  for  Hesychiiis  renders  it  by  xv^s^vriaiv,  "guidance,  di- 
rection," and  the  Tt^oatatM,  "guardians,  protectors,  presidents" 
at  Athens  had  certainly  a  power  of  government  in  them. . 

6.  The  very  word  xv^e^vt^sui,  is  attributed  to  those  who 
have  the  oversight  of  churches,  1  Cor.  xii.  8,  by  which  it  is 
certainly  evident,  that  a  power  more  than  doctrinal  is  under- 
stood; as  that  it  could  not  then  be  understood  of  a  power 
merely  civil.  And  this  I  suppose  may  sutiice  to  vindicate 
this  argument  from  the  titles  of  church  officers,  in  the  New 
Testament,  that  they  are  not  insignificant  things,  but  the  per- 
sons who  enjoyed  them  had  a  right  to  govern  the  society  over 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  overseers. 

§  19.  —  3.  I  argue  that  church  power  ariseth  not  merely  from 
consent,  because  the  church  may  exercise  her  power  on  such 
who  have  not  actually  confederated  with  her;  which  is  in 
admitting  members  into  the  church:  for  if  the  church  officers 
have  power  to  judge  whether  persons  are  fit  to  be  admitted, 
they  have  power  to  exclude  from  admission  such  whom  they 
judge  unfit,  and  so  their  power  is  exercised  on  those  who  are 
not  confederated.  To  this  it  may  be  answered,  that  the  con- 
sent to  be  judged,  gives  the  churcli  power  over  the  person 
suing  for  admission.  I  grant  it  doth,  as  to  that  particular  per- 
son; but  the  right  in  general  of  judging  concerning  admission, 
doth  argue  an  antecedent  power  to  an  actual  confederation. 
For  I  will  suppose  that  Christ  should  now  appoint  some  officers 
to  found  a  church,  and  gather  a  society  of  Christians  together, 
where  there  hath  been  none  before:  I  now  ask  whether  these 
officers  have  power  to  admit  any  into  the  church  or  not?  This 
I  suppose  cannot  be  denied,  for  to  what  end  else  were  they 
appointed?     If  it  be  granted  they  have  power  to  admit  per- 

'  Not  only  to  pasture  or  feed,  but  to  guide  and  rule;  as  a.  shepherd  has  the 
right  to  lead  to  a  right  pasture,  and  to  drive  from  a  wrong  one. 


460  A  DISCOURSE  CONCERNING  THE  POWER  OF 

sons,  and  thereby  make  a  church,  then  they  had  power  ante- 
cedently to  any  confederation;  for  the  confederation  was 
subsequent  to  their  admission:  and  therefore  they  who  had 
power  to  admit,  could  not  derive  their  power  from  confedera- 
tion. This  argument,  to  me,  puts  the  case  out  of  dispute,  that 
all  church  power  cannot  arise  from  mere  confederation. 

And  that  which  further  evidences  that  the  power  of  the 
church  doth  not  arise  from  mere  consent,  is  that  deed  of  gift 
whereby  our  blessed  Saviour  did  confer  the  power  of  the 
keys  on  the  apostle  Peter,  as  the  representative  in  that  action 
of  the  whole  college  of  the  apostles  and  governors  of  the 
church,  of  which  power  all  the  apostles  were  actually  en- 
feoffed,^ John,  XX.  23.  By  which  power  of  the  keys  is  cer- 
tainly meant  some  administration  in  the  church,  which  doth 
respect  it  as  a  visible  society,  in  which  sense  the  church  is  so 
frequently  called,  as  in  that  place,  the  kingdom  of  Heaven;^ 
and  in  all  probability  the  administration  intended  here  by  the 
power  of  the  keys,  is  that  we  are  now  discoursing  of,  viz.  the 
power  of  admission  into  the  church  of  Christ,  in  order  to  the 
pardon  of  the  sins  of  all  penitent  believers,  and  the  shutting 
out  of  such  who  were  manifestly  unworthy  of  so  holy  a  com- 
nuuiion.  So  that  the  power  of  the  keys  doth  not  primarily 
respect  exclusion  out  of  the  church,  and  receiving  into  it  again 
upon  absolution,  but  it  chiefly  respects  the  power  of  admission 
into  the  church,  though  by  way  of  connotation  and  analogy 
of  reason  it  will  carry  the  other  along  with  it.  For  if  the 
apostles  as  governors  of  the  church  were  invested  with  a 
power  of  judging  of  men's  fitness  for  admission  into  the  church 
as  members  of  it,  it  stands  to  the  highest  reason  that  they 
should  have  thereby  likewise  a  power  conveyed  to  them,  of 
excluding  such  as  are  unworthy  after  their  admission,  to  main- 
tain communion  with  the  church.  So  that  this  interpretation 
of  the  power  of  the  keys,  is  far  from  invalidating  the  power  of 
the  church,  as  to  its  censuring  offenders;  all  that  it  pretends  to, 
is  only  giving  a  more  natural  and  genuine  sense  of  the  power 
of  the  keys,  which  will  appear  so  to  be,  if  we  consider  these 
things.  1.  That  this  power  was  given  to  St.  Peter  before  any 
Christian  church  was  actually  formed,  which,  (as  I  have  else- 
where made  manifest,)^  was  not  done  till  after  Christ's  resur- 
rection; when  Christ  had  given  the  apostles  their  commission 
to  go  to  preach  and  baptize,  &c.    Matth.  xxviii.  19.     Is  it  not 

'  "  From  the  ancient  law  term,  feoft',  to  put  in  possession,  to  invest  with  right." 
2  Matt.  xvi.  19.  3  Iren.  p.  2,  ch.  5,  s.  5. 


EXCOMMUNICATION  IN  A  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  461 

therefore  far  more  rational,  that  the  power  of  the  keys  here 
given  should  respect  the  founding  of  a  church  and  admission 
into  it  than  ejection  out  of  it,  (before  it  was  in  being,)  and 
receiving  into  it  again?  And  this  we  find  likewise  remarkably- 
fulfilled  in  the  person  of  the  apostle  Peter,  who  opened  the 
door  of  admission  into  the  Christian  church,  both  to  Jews 
and  Gentiles.  To  the  Jews  by  his  sermon  at  Pentecost,  when 
about  three  thousand  souls  were  brought  into  the  church  of 
Christ.^  To  the  Gentiles,  as  is  most  evident  in  the  story  of 
Cornelius,  Jicts  x.  28,  who  was  the  first  fruits  of  the  Gentiles, 
So  that  if  we  should  yield  so  far  to  the  great  enhancers  of  St. 
Peter'' s  power,  that  something  was  intencled  peculiar  to  his 
person  in  the  keys  given  him  by  our  Saviour,  we  hereby  see 
how  rationally  it  may  be  understood  without  the  least  advan- 
tage to  the  extravagant  pretensions  of  St.  Peter^s  pretended 
successors.  2.  The  pardon  of  sin  in  scripture  is  most  annexed 
to  baptism  and  admission  into  thechurch,2and  thence  it  seems 
evident,  that  the  loosing  of  sin  should  be  by  admitting  into  the 
church  by  baptism,^  in  the  same  sense  by  which  baptism  is 
said  to  save  us,  and  it  is  called  the  washing  of  regeneration,^ 
respecting  the  spiritual  advantages  which  come  by  admission 
into  the  church  of  Christ;  and  so  they  are  said  to  have  their 
sins  bound  upon  them  who  continue  refractory  in  their  sins,^ 
as  Simon  Magus  is  said  to  be  in  the  bond  of  iniquity.  3. 
The  metaphor  of  the  keys  refers  most  to  admission  into  the 
house  and  excluding  out  of  it,  rather  than  ejecting  any  out  of 
it,  and  readmitting  them.  Thus,  when  Eliakim  is  said  to 
have  the  keys  of  the  house  of  David,^  it  was  in  regard  of  his 
power  to  open  and  shut  upon  whom  he  pleased.  And  thus 
Cyprian^  as  our  learned  Mr.  Thorndike  observes,  understands 
the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  in  this  sense,  in  his  epistle 
to  Jubaianus,  where  speaking  of  the  remission  of  sins  in 
baptism,  he  brings  these  very  words  of  our  Saviour  to  Peter 
as  the  evidence  of  it,  "that  what  he  should  loose  on  earth, 
should  be  loosed  in  Heaven,"  and  concludes  with  this  sen- 
tence: "From  whence  we  understand,  that  it  was  not  lawful, 
except  to  rulers  in  the  church,  established  by  gospel  law,  and 


t  Acts  ii.  41.  2  1  Pet.  iii.  21. 

3  Tit.  iii.  5. 

4  Water  baptism  is  the  sign  of  that  only  which  has  power  to  save,  the  baptism 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  in  its  plenitude  may  be  contemplated  as  given  to  the 
apostolic  church,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.     Acts  ii. 

6  Acts  viii.  33.  6  Isa.  xxii.  20. 

7  Cypr.  Ep.  73,  sect.  6. 


462  A  DISCOURSE  CONCERNING  THE  POWER  OF 

our  Lord's  institution,  to  baptize,  and  to  grant  remission  of 
sins;  for  without,"  (the  church,)  "it  is  not  possible  that  any- 
thing can  be  bound,  nor  released,  and  where  there  is  not  one, 
who  can  bind  or  release."^  That  which  I  now  infer  from 
this  discourse  is,  that  the  power  of  the  church  doth  not  arise 
from  mere  consent  and  confederation,  both  because  this  power 
doth  respect  tliose  who  have  not  actually  consented  to  it,  and 
because  it  is  settled  upon  the  governors  of  the  church  by  di- 
vine institution.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  right  of  inflicting 
censures  doth  not  result  merely  ex  confoederatd  disciplind, 
which  was  the  thing  to  be  proved. 

§  20. — 2,  The  like  evidence  may  be  given,  for  the  duty  of 
submitting  to  penalties  or  church  censures  in  the  members  of 
the  church:  which  that  it  ariseth  not  from  mere  consent  of 
parties,  will  appear  on  these  accounts. 

1.  Every  person  who  enters  this  society  is  bound  to  con- 
sent, before  he  doth  it,  because  of  the  obligation  lying  upon 
conscience  to  an  open  profession  of  Christianity,  presently 
upon  conviction  of  the  understanding  of  the  truth  and  cer- 
tainty of  the  Christian  religion.  For  when  once  the  mind  of 
any  rational  man  is  so  far  wrought  upon  by  the  influence  of 
the  divine  spirit,  as  to  discover  the  most  rational  and  un- 
doubted evidences,  which  there  are  of  the  truth  of  Christianity, 
he  is  presently  obliged  to  profess  Christ  openly,  to  worship 
him  solemnly,  to  assemble  with  others  for  instruction  and 
participation  of  gospel  ordinances;  and  thence  it  follows,  that 
there  is  an  antecedent  obligation  on  conscience  to  associate 
with  others,  and  consequently  to  consent  to  be  governed  by 
the  rulers  of  the  society  which  he  enters  into.  So  that  this 
submission  to  the  power  of  church  officers  in  the  exercise  of 
discipline  on  off'enders,  is  implied  in  the  very  conditions  of 
Christianity,  and  the  solemn  professing  and  undertaking  of  it. 
2.  It  were  impossible  any  society  should  be  upheld,  if  it  be 
not  laid  by  the  founder  of  the  society  as  tlie  necessary  duty  of 
all  members  to  undergo  the  penalties  which  shall  be  inflicted 
by  those  who  have  the  care  of  governing  that  society,  so  they 
be  not  contrary  to  the  laws,  nature  and  constitution  of  it,  else 
there  would  be  no  provision  made  for  preventing  divisions 
and  confnsions  which  will  happen  upon  any  breach  made 
upon  the  laws  of  the  society.     Now  this  obligation  to  submis- 

'  Unde  intclligimus  non  nisi  in  ecdesia  prsEpositis  et  in  evangelica  lege  ac  do- 
ininica  ordinalione  fundatis,  licere  baptizare,  et  rcmissionem  pcccatorum  dare; 
foris  aulem  nee  ligari  aliquid  posse  nee  solvi,  ubi  non  sit  qui  ligare  possit  aut 
solvere. 


EXCOMMUNICATION  IN  A  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  463 

sion  to  censures,  doth  speak  something  antecedently  to  the 
confederation,  although  the  expression  of  it  Ues  in  the  con- 
federation itself  By  tiiis  I  hope  we  have  nnade  it  evident 
that  it  is  nothing  else  but  a  mistake  in  those  otherwise  learned 
persons,  who  make  the  power  of  censures  in  the  Christian 
church  to  bo  nothing  else  but  a  lex  confedcrulse  discipline, 
"a  law  of  confederated  discipline,"  whereas  this  power  hath 
been  made  appear  to  be  derived  from  a  higher  original  than 
the  mere  arbitrary  consent  of  the  several  members  of  the 
church  associating  together;  and  how  far  are  the  examples  of 
the  synagogues  under  the  law,  from  reaching  that  of  Chris- 
tian churches  in  reference  to  this,  because  in  these  the  power 
is  conveyed  by  the  founder  of  the  society,  and  not  left  to  any 
arbitrary  constitutions,  as  it  was  among  the  Jews  in  their 
synagogues.  It  cannot  be  denied  but  consent  is  supposed,  and 
confederation  necessary  in  order  to  church  power;  but  that  is 
rather  in  regard  of  the  exercise,  than  the  original  of  it;  for 
although  I  affirm  the  original  of  this  power  to  be  of  divine  in- 
stitution, yet  in  order  to  the  exercise  of  it  in  reference  to  par- 
ticular persons,  (who  are  not  mentioned  in  the  charter  of  the 
power  itself,)  it  is  necessary  that  the  persons  on  whom  it  is 
exerted,  should  declare  their  consent  and  submission  either  by 
words  or  actions,  to  the  rules  and  orders  of  this  society. 

§  21.  Having  now  proved  that  the  power  of  the  church  doth 
not  arise  from  mere  consent  of  parties,  the  next  grand  inquiry 
is  concerning  the  extent  of  this  power,  whether  it  doth  reach 
so  far  as  to  excommunication?  For  some  men  who  will  not 
seem  wholly  to  deny  all  power  in  the  church  over  offenders, 
nor  tliat  the  church  doth  subsist  by  divine  institution,  yet  do 
wholly  deny  any  such  power  as  that  of  excommunication,  and 
seem  rather  to  say  that  church  officers  may  far  more  consis- 
tently with  their  office  inflict  any  other  mulct  upon  offenders, 
than  exclude  them  from  participation  of  communion  with 
others  in  the  ordinances  and  sacraments  of  the  gospel.  In 
order  therefore  to  the  clearing  of  this,  I  come  to  the  third  pro- 
position. 

That  the  power  which  Christ  hath  given  to  the  officers  of 
his  church,  doth  extend  to  the  exclusion  of  contumacious  of- 
fenders from  the  privileges  which  this  society  enjoys.  In 
these  terms  I  rather  choose  to  fix  it,  than  in  those  crude  ex- 
pressions, wherein  Erastus  and  some  of  his  followers  would 
state  the  question,  and  some  of  their  imprudent  adversaries 
have  accepted  it,  viz:  whether  church  officers  have  power  to 
exclude  any  from  the  eucharist,  ob  moralem  impuritatem^ 


464  A  DISCOURSE  CONCERNING  THE  POWER  OP 

«on  account  of  moral  impurity?"     And  the  reason  why  I 
waive  these  terms,  are: — 

1.  I  must  confess  myself  yet  unsatisfied  as  to  any  con- 
vincing argument,  whereby  it  can  be  proved  that  any  were 
denied  admission  to  the  Lord's  supper,  who  were  admitted  to 
all  other  parts  of  church  society,  and  owned  as  members  in 
them.  I  cannot  yet  see  any  particular  reason  drawn  from 
the  nature  of  the  Lord's  supper,  above  all  other  parts  of 
divine  worship,  which  should  confine  the  censures  of  the 
church  merely  to  that  ordinance;  and  so  to  make  the  eucharist 
bear  the  same  office  in  the  body  of  the  church,  which  our 
new  anatomists  tell  us  the  parenchyme  of  the  liver  doth  in 
the  natural  body,  viz.  to  be  colum  sanguinis,  "  a  strainer  of 
the  blood,"  to  serve  as  a  kind  of  strainer  to  separate  the  more 
gross  and  feculent  parts  of  the  blood  from  the  more  pure  and 
spirituous;  so  the  Lord's  supper,  to  strain  out  the  more  impure 
members  of  the  church  from  the  more  holy  and  spiritual. 
My  judgment  then  is,  that  excommunication  relates  imme- 
diately to  the  cutting  a  person  off  from  communion  with  the 
church's  visible  society,  constituted  upon  the  ends  it  is;  but 
because  communion  is  not  visibly  discerned  but  in  adminis- 
tration and  participation  of  gospel  ordinances,  therefore  ex- 
clusion doth  chiefly  refer  to  these;  and  because  the  Lord's 
supper  is  one  of  the  highest  privileges  which  the  church  en- 
joys; therefore  it  stands  to  reasoa  that  censures  should  begin 
there.  And  in  that  sense,  suspension  from  the  Lord's  supper 
of  persons  apparently  unworthy,  may  be  embraced  as  a  pru- 
dent, lawful,  and  convenient  abatement  of  the  greater  penalty 
of  excommunication,  and  so  to  stand  on  the  same  general 
grounds  that  the  other  doth;  for  qui  potest  majus,  potest 
efiam  minus,  "  what  can  effect  the  greater,  can  effect  the 
less,"  which  will  hold  as  well  in  moral  as  natural  power,  if 
there  be  no  prohibition  to  the  contrary,  nor  peculiar  reason  as 
to  the  one  more  than  to  the  other. 

2.  I  dislike  the  terms  ob  moralem  impuritatem,  "  on  ac- 
count of  moral  impurity,"  on  this  account,  because  I  suppose 
they  were  taken  up  by  Erastus,  and  from  him  by  others,  as 
the  controversy  was  managed  concerning  excommunication 
among  the  Jews,  viz.  whether  it  was  merely  because  of  cere- 
monial, or  else  likewise  because  of  moral  impurity.  As  to 
which  I  must  ingenuously  acknowledge,  Erastus  hath  very 
much  the  advantage  of  his  adversaries,  clearly  proving  that 
no  persons  under  the  law  were  excluded  the  temple  worship 
because  of  moral  impurity.     But  then  withal  I  think  he  hath 


EXCOMMUNICATION  IN  A  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  465 

gained  little  advantage  to  his  cause  by  the  great  and  successful 
pains  he  hath  taken  in  the  proving  of  that.  My  reason  is, 
because  the  temple  worship,  or  the  sacrifices  under  the  law 
were  in  some  sense  propitiatory,'  as  they  were  the  adumbra- 
tions, or  typical,  of  that  grand  sacrifice  which  was  to  be  offered 
up  for  the  appeasing  of  God's  wrath,  viz.  the  blood  of  Christ; 
therefore,  to  have  excluded  any  from  participation  of  them, 
had  been  to  exclude  them  from  the  visible  symbol  of  obtaining 
pardon  of  sin,  (which  was  not  to  be  had  without  the  shedding 
of  blood,  as  the  apostle  tells  us,)  and  from  testifying  their  faith 
towards  God,  and  repentance  from  dead  works.^  But  now 
under  the  gospel  those  ordinances,  which  suppose  admission 
into  the  church  by  baptism,  do  thereby  suppose  an  all-sufficient 
sacrifice  offered  for  the  expiation  of  sin,  and  consequently  the 
subsequent  privileges  do  not  immediately  relate  to  the  ob- 
taining of  that,  but  a  grateful  commemoration  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  and  a  celebration  of  the  infinite  mercy  and  goodness 
of  God  in  the  way  of  redemption,  found  out  by  the  death  of 
his  Son.  And  therefore  it  stands  to  great  reason  that  such 
persons,  who  by  their  profane  and  unworthy  lives  dishonour 
so  holy  a  profession,  should  not  be  owned  to  be  as  good  and 
sound  members  of  the  society,  founded  on  so  sacred  a  foun- 
dation, as  the  most  Christian  and  religious  persons.  To  this 
I  know  nothing  can  be  objected,  but  that,  firsts  the  passover 
was  commemorative  among  the  Jews;  and,  secondly,  that  the 
privileges  of  that  people  were  then  very  great  above  other 
people,  and  therefore  if  God  had  intended  any  such  thing  as 
excommunication  among  his  people,  it  would  have  been  in 
use  then.     To  these,  1  answer: 

1,  I  grant,  the  Passover  was  commemorative  as  to  the 
occasion  of  its  institution:  but  then  it  was  withal  typical  and 
annunciative  of  that  Lamb  of  God  who  was  to  take  away  the 
sins  of  the  world;  and  therefore  no  person  who  desired  expia- 
tion of  sins,  was  to  be  debarred  from  it;  but  the  Lord's  supper 
under  the  gospel  hath  nothing  in  it  propitiatory,  but  is  intended 
as  a  feast  upon  a  sacrifice  and  a  federal  rite,  as  hath  been  fully 
cleared  by  a  very  learned  person  in  his  discourse  about  the 
true  notion  of  the  Lord's  supper. 

2.  I  grant  the  Jews  had  very  many  privileges  above  other 
nations:  nay,  so  far,  that  the  whole  body  of  the  people  were 
looked  upon  as  God's  chosen,  and  peculiar  and  holy  people; 
and  from  thence  I  justly  infer,  that  whatever  exclusion  was 

>  Heb.  ix.  23. 
59 


466  A  DISCOURSE  CONCEKNING  THE  POWER  OF 

among  the  people  of  the  Jews  from  their  society,  will  far 
better  hold  as  an  argument  for  excommunication  under  the 
Christian  church,  than  if  it  had  been  a  mere  debarring  from 
their  Levitical  worship.  And  that  I  should  far  sooner  insist 
upon  from  the  reason  assigned,  as  the  ground  of  excommuni- 
cation, than  the  other  infirm  and  profligated  argument;  and 
so  the  exclusion  out  of  the  camp  of  Israel  and  the  Cerith 
among  the  Jews,  (whatever  we  understand  by  it,)  may  hpari 
hold  to  be  a  ground  of  exclusion  from  the  Christian  society: 
in  imitation  of  which,  I  rather  suppose  that  exclusion  out  of 
the  synagogues  was  after  taken  up,  rather  as  a  mere  outlawry, 
when  they  were  deprived  of  civil  power. 

§  22.  The  question  .then  being  thus  clearly  stated,  it  amounts 
to  this,  whether  under  the  gospel,  there  be  any  power  in  the 
officers  of  the  church  by  virtue  of  divine  institution  to  exclude 
any  offenders  out  of  the  Christian  society,  for  transgressing  the 
laws  of  it?  And  according  to  our  former  propositions,  I  sup- 
pose it  will  be  sufficient  to  prove  that  power  to  be  of  divine 
institution;  if  I  prove  it  to  be  fundamentally  and  intrinsically 
resident  in  the  society  itself  For  whatever  doth  immediately 
result  from  the  society  itself,  must  have  the  same  original 
which  the  subject  hath,  because  this  hath  the  nature  of  an 
inseparable  property  resulting  from  its  constitution.  For  the 
clearing  of  which,  I  shall  lay  down  my  thoughts  of  it  as  clearly 
and  methodically  as  I  can;  and  that  in  these  following  hy- 
potheses. 

1.  Where  there  is  a  power  of  declaring  any  person  to  be 
no  true  member  of  the  society  he  is  in,  there  is  a  formal  power 
of  excommunication:  for  this  is  all  which  I  intend  by  it,  viz. 
an  authoritative  pronouncing  virtute  officii,  "  by  virtue  of 
office,"  any  convict  offender  to  have  forfeited  his  interest  in 
the  church  as  a  Christian  society:  and  to  lose  all  the  privileges 
of  it:  so  that  if  this  power  be  lodged  in  any  church  officer,  then 
he  hath  power  formally  to  excommunicate. 

2.  Where  the  enjoyment  of  the  privileges  of  a  society  is 
not  absolute  and  necessary,  but  depends  upon  conditions  to  be 
performed  by  every  member,  of  which  the  society  is  judge, 
there  is  a  power  in  the  rulers  of  that  society  to  debar  any  per- 
son from  such  privileges,  upon  non-performance  of  the  con- 
ditions. As  supposing  the  jus  civitatis,  "  the  right  of  the 
state,"  to  depend  upon  defending  the  rights  of  the  city;  upon 
a  failing  in  reference  to  this,  in  any  person  admitted  to  citizen- 
ship, the  rulers  of  the  city  have  the  same  power  to  take  that 
right  away,  which  they  had  at  first  to  give  it;  because  that 


EXCOMMUNICATION  IN  A  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  467 

right  was  never  absolutely  given,  but  upon  supposition  that 
the  person  did  not  overthrow  the  ends  for  which  it  was  be- 
stowed upon  him. 

3.  The  church  is  such  a  society  in  which  communion  is  not 
absolute  and  necessary,  but  it  doth  depend  upon  the  per- 
formance of  some  conditions,  of  which  the  governors  of  it  are 
the  competent  judges:  and  that  appears, 

1.  Because  the  admission  into  the  church,  depends  upon 
conditions  to  be  judged  by  pastors,  as  in  case  of  adult  persons 
requiring  baptism,  and  the  children  of  infidels  being  baptized: 
in  both  which  cases  it  is  evident  that  conditions  are  pre- 
requisite, of  which  the  pastors  are  judges. 

2.  Because  the  privileges  of  this  society  do  require  a  sepa- 
ration from  other  societies  in  the  world,  and  call  for  greater 
holiness  and  purity  of  life;  and  those  very  privileges  are  pledges 
of  greater  benefits  which  belong  only  to  persons  qualified  with 
suitable  conditions;  it  would  therefore  be  a  very  great  dis- 
honour to  this  society,  if  it  lie  as  common  and  open  as  other 
societies  in  the  world  do,  and  no  more  qualifications  required 
from  the  members  of  it. 

3.  We  have  instances  in  the  sacred  records  of  apostolical 
times,  of  such  scandals  which  have  been  the  ground  of  the 
exclusion  of  the  persons  guilty  of  them  from  the  privileges  of 
Christian  society.  And  here  I  suppose  we  may,  (notwith- 
standing all  the  little  evasions  which  have  been  found  out,) 
fix  on  the  incestuous  person  in  the  church  of  Corinth.  As  to 
whom,  I  lay  not  the  force  of  the  argument  upon  the  manner 
of  execution  of  the  censure  then,  viz.  by  delegation  from  an 
apostle,  or  the  apostolical  rod,  or  delivering  to  Satan;  for  I 
freely  grant  that  these  did  then  import  an  extraordinary  power 
in  the  apostles  over  offenders;  but  I  say,  the  ground  and  reason 
of  the  exercise  of  that  power  in  such  an  extraordinary  man- 
ner at  that  time,  doth  still  continue,  although  not  in  that  visible 
extraordinary  effect  which  it  then  had.  And  whatever  prac- 
tice is  founded  upon  grounds  perpetual  and  common,  that 
practice  must  continue  as  long  as  the  grounds  of  it  do,  and 
the  church's  capacity  will  admit;  (which  hypothesis  is  the 
only  rational  foundation  on  which  episcopal  government  in 
the  church  doth  stand  firm  and  unshaken,  and  which  in  the 
former  discourse  I  am  far  from  undermining,  as  an  intelligent 
reader  may  perceive;)  now  I  say  that  it  is  evident,  that  the 
reasons  of  the  apostle's  censure  of  that  person,  are  not  fetched 
from  the  want  of  Christian  magistrates,  but  from  such  things 
which  will  hold  as  long  as  any  Christian  church:  which  are 


468  A  DISCOURSE  CONCERNING  THE  POWER  OF 

the  dishonour  of  the  society,  1  Corinth,  iv.  1;  the  spreading  of 
such  corruptions  further,  if  they  pass  uncensured,  1  Corinth. 
V.  6;  and  amendment  of  the  person,  1  Cor.  v.  5.  Upon  these 
pillars  the  power  of  censures  rests  itself  in  the  church  of  God, 
which  are  the  main  grounds  of  penalties  in  all  societies  what- 
soever, viz.  the  preservation  of  the  honour  of  them,  and  pre- 
venting of  further  mischief,  and  doing  good  to  the  offending 
party.  And  that  which  seems  to  add  a  great  deal  of  weight 
to  this  instance,  is,  that  the  apostle  checks  the  Corinthians, 
that  before  the  exercise  of  the  apostolical  rod,  were  not  of 
themselves  sensible  of  so  great  a  dishonour  to  the  church  as 
that  was,  and  had  not  used  some  means  for  the  removing 
such  a  person  from  their  society;  "  and  ye  are  puffed  up,  and 
have  not  rather  mourned  that  he  that  hath  done  this  deed, 
maybe  taken  away  from  among  you,"  iCorm/A.  v.  2.  Therein 
implying,  that  whether  there  had  been  such  a  thing  in  the 
church,  or  not,  as  the  apostolical  rod,  it  had  been  the  duty  of 
a  Christian  society  to  have  done  their  endeavour  in  order  to 
the  removing  such  a  person  from  their  number.  But  further, 
1  cannot  understand  how  it  should  be  a  duty  in  Christians  to 
withdraw  from  every  brother  who  walketh  disorderly,  and 
church  officers  not  to  have  power  to  pronounce  such  a  person 
to  be  withdrawn  from,  which  amounts  to  excommunication. ^ 
It  is  not  to  me  at  all  material,  whether  they  did  immediately 
relate  to  civil  or  sacred  converse,  (concerning  which  there  is 
so  much  dispute,)  for  in  whichsoever  we  place  it,  if  church 
officers  have  a  power  to  pronounce  such  a  person  to  be  with- 
drawn from,  they  have  a  power  of  excommunication;  so  we 
consider  this  penalty  as  inflicted  on  the  person  in  his  relation 
to  the  society  as  a  Christian;  and  withal,  how  nearly  conjoined 
their  civil  and  spiritual  eating  were  together,  1  Corinth,  xi. 
20,  21,  and  how  strongly  the  argument  will  hold  from  civil  to 
sacred,  viz.  a  rernotione  unius  ad  remotionem  alterius,  "  by 
removal  from  the  one  to  that  to  the  other,"  in  this  case,  by 
analogy,  not  from  any  fancied  pollution  in  sacris,  "  in  sacred 
things"  from  the  company  of  wicked  men,  but  from  the  dis- 
honour reflecting  on  the  society  from  such  unworthy  persons 
partaking  of  the  highest  privileges  of  it.  Thus  from  these  three 
hypotheses  this  corollary  follows,  that  where  any  persons  in 
a  church  do  by  their  open  and  contumacious  offences,  declare 
to  the  world  that  they  are  far  from  being  the  persons  they 
were  supposed  to  be  in  their  admission  into  the  church,  there 

1  2  Cor.  V.  11;  2  Thess.  iii.  14. 


EXCOMMUNICATION  IN  A  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  469 

is  a  power  resident  in  the  pastors  of  the  church  to  debar  such 
persons  from  the  privileges  of  it;  and  consequently  from  com- 
munion in  the  Lord's  supper.  1,  Because  this  expresseth  the 
nearest  union,  and  closest  confederation,  as  the  avcsaoua,  "  eat- 
ing or  living  together,"  among  the  Grecians'  commonwealths 
did.  2.  Because  this  hath  been  always  looked  on  with  the 
greatest  veneration  in  the  church  of  God;  and  therefore  it  is 
least  of  all  fit  those  persons  should  be  admitted  to  the  highest 
privileges  of  the  church,  which  are  unworthy  of  the  lowest  of 
them. 

§  23,  There  remain  only  some  few  objections  which  are 
levelled  against  this  opinion  concerning  the  power  of  excom- 
munication, which  from  the  question  being  thus  stated  and 
proved,  will  be  soon  removed.  The  Jirsi  is,  that  this  ex- 
communication is  an  outicard  punishment,  and  therefore 
belongs  not  to  church  officers,  but  to  the  magistrate.  2. 
Because  it  neither  is,  nor  ever  ivas  in  the  power  of  any 
church  officer  to  debar  any  offending  member  from  public 
worship,  because  any  heathens  rruty  come  to  it.  3.  It  can- 
not lie  as  to  exclusion  from  the  Lord's  supper,  becatise 
Christ  is  offered  as  spiritual  food  as  well  in  the  word 
preached  as  in  the  sacrament.  To  these  I  answer,  1.  I  do 
not  well  understand  what  the  objectors  mean  by  an  outward 
punishment;  for  there  can  be  no  punishment  belonging  to  a 
visible  society,  (such  as  the  church  is  here  considered  to  be,) 
but  it  must  be  visible,  i.  e.  outward,  or  a  thing  to  be  taken 
notice  of  in  the  world;  and  in  this  sense  I  deny  that  all  visible 
punishment  belongs  only  to  the  magistrate;  but  if  by  outward 
be  meant  forcible  punishment,  then  I  grant  that  all  coactive 
power  belongs  to  the  magistrate;  but  I  deny  that  excommu- 
nication formally  considered,  is  a  forcible  punishment.  1. 
Because  every  person  at  his  entrance  into  this  society,  is  sup- 
posed to  declare  his  submission  to  the  rules  of  the  society; 
and  therefore  whatever  he  after  undergoes  by  way  of  penalty 
in  this  society,  doth  depend  upon  that  consent.  2.  A  person 
stands  excommunicated  legally  and  de  jure,  who  is  declared 
authoritatively  to  be  no  member  of  the  society,  though  he 
may  be  present  at  the  acts  of  it,  as  a  defranchised  person  may 
be  at  those  of  a  corporation.  3,  A  person  falling  into  those 
offences  which  merit  excommunication,  is  supposed  in  so 
doing,  voluntarily  to  renounce  his  interest  in  those  privileges, 
the  enjoyment  of  which  doth  depend  upon  abstaining  from 
those  offences  which  he  wilfully  falls  into,  especially  if  con- 
tumacy be  joined  with  them,  as  it  is  before  exconimunica- 


47^  A  DISCOURSE  CONCERNING  THE  POWER  OF 

tion;  for  then  nothing  is  done  forcibly,  towards  him;  for  he 
first  reUnquisheth  his  right,  before  the  church  governor  de- 
clares him  excluded  the  society.  So  that  the  olTender  doth 
meritoriously  excommunicate  himself,  the  pastor  doth  it  for- 
mally, by  declaring  that  he  hath  made  himself  no  member  by 
his  offences  and  contumacy  joined  with  them.  To  the  second 
I  answer,  That  I  do  not  place  the  formality  of  excommunica- 
tion in  exclusion  from  hearing  the  word,  but  in  debarring  the 
person  from  hearing  tanqitam  pars  ecclesise,  "as  a  member 
of  the  church,"  and  so  his  hearing  may  be  well  joined  with 
that  of  heathens  and  infidels,  and  not  of  members  of  the 
church.  To  the  third  I  answer,  That  exclusion  from  the 
Lord's  supper  is  not  on  the  accounts  mentioned  in  the  objec- 
tion, but  because  it  is  one  of  the  chief  privileges  of  the 
church,  as  it  is  a  visible  society. 

Having  thus  cleared  and  asserted  the  power  of  excommu- 
nication in  a  Christian  church,  there  remains  only  one  inquiry 
more,  which  is,  Whether  this  power  doth  remain  formally 
in  the  church,  after  its  being  incorporated  into  the  common- 
wealth, or  else  doth  it  then  escheat  wholly  into  the  civil 
power?  The  resolution  of  which  question  mainly  depends 
on  another  spoken  to  already;  viz.  Whether  this  power  was 
only  a  kind  of  widow's  estate,  which  belonged  to  it  only 
during  its  separation  from  the  civil  power,  or  was  the  church 
absolutely  enfeoffed  of  it  as  its  perpetual  right,  belonging  to 
it  in  all  conditions  whatsoever  it  should  be  in?  Now  that 
must  appear  by  the  tenure  of  it,  and  the  grounds  on  which 
it  was  conveyed,  which  having  been  proved  already  to  be 
perpetual  and  universal,  it  from  thence  appears  that  no  acces- 
sion to  the  church  can  invalidate  its  former  title.  But  then 
as  in  case  of  marriage,  the  right  of  disposal  and  well  manage- 
ment of  the  estate  coming  by  the  wife,  belongs  to  the  hus- 
band, so  after  the  church  is  married  into  the  commonwealth, 
the  right  of  supreme  management  of  this  power  in  an  ex- 
ternal way  doth  fall  into  the  magistrate's  hands.  Which 
may  consist  in  these  following  things.  1.  A  right  of  pre- 
scribing laws  for  the  due  management  of  church  censures. 
2.  A  right  of  bounding  the  manner  of  proceeding  in  censures, 
that  in  a  settled  Christian  state,  matters  of  so  great  weight  be 
not  left  to  the  arbitrary  pleasure  of  any  church  officers,  nor 
such  censures  inflicted  but  upon  an  evident  conviction  of 
such  great  offences  which  tend  to  the  dishonour  of  the  Chris- 
tian church,  and  that  in  order  to  the  amendment  of  the 
offender's  life.     3.  The  right  of  adding  temporal  and  civil 


EXCOMMUNICATION  IN  A  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  471 

sanctions  to  church  censures,  and  so  enforcing  the  spiritual 
weapons  of  the  church,  with  the  more  keen  and  sharp  ones 
of  the  civil  state.  Thus  I  assert  the  force  and  efficacy  of  all 
church  censures  in  foro  humano  to  flow  from  the  civil 
power,  and  that  there  is  no  proper  effect  following  any  of 
them  as  to  civil  rights,  but  from  the  magistrate's  sanction. 
4.  To  the  magistrate  belongs  the  right  of  appeals  in  case  of 
unjust  censures,  not  that  the  magistrate  can  repeal  a  just  cen- 
sure in  the  church,  as  to  its  spiritual  effect;  but  he  may  sus- 
pend the  temporal  effect  of  it:  in  which  case  it  is  the  duty  of 
pastors  to  discharge  their  office  and  acquiesce.  But  this 
power  of  the  magistrate  in  the  supreme  ordering  of  ecclesi- 
astical as  well  as  civil  causes,  I  have  fully  asserted  and  cleared 
already.^  From  which  it  follows.  That  as  to  any  outward 
effects  of  the  power  of  excommunication,  the  person  of  the 
supreme  magistrate  must  be  exempted,  both  because  the 
force  of  these  censures  doth  flow  from  him  in  a  Christian 
state,  and  that  there  otherwise  would  be  a  progress  in  infini- 
tum^ to  know  whether  the  censure  of  the  magistrate  were 
just  or  not.  I  conclude  then,  that  though  the  magistrate  hath 
the  main  care  of  ordering  things  in  the  church,  yet  (the  magis- 
trate's power  in  the  church  being  cumulative,  and  not  priva- 
tive,) the  church  and  her  officers  retain  the  fundamental  right 
of  inflicting  censure  on  offenders;  which  was  the  thing  to  be 
proved. — Q.  E.  D. 

'  Iren.  p.  1,  c.  2,  sect.  7. 

2  This  is  a  logical  term,  exemplified,  when  in  answer  to  any  question,  any- 
thing is  said  to  be  not  it,  which  is  not,  and  so  of  another,  or  of  an  infinite  num- 
ber of  negatives,  always  withholding  the  true  answer.— .A.  E. 


I  DEDIT  DEUS  HIS  QUOaDE  FINEM. 

"  God  hath  granted  to  these  labours  also  a  termination. 


^ 


